James Cook wrote:
> The schema is *not* normalized, you are correct. I did this because I
> thought it would give me some advantages if I wanted to model my two
objects
> both as Entity beans.
>
> I'm going to try and model the Fund as an Entity bean first, and just see
> what issues creep in. It certainly will not be a common implementation,
but
> since none of the summary fields are updateable in this object, I don't
> believe it is actually an incorrect implementation.
I agree with the idea of modelling both objects as EBs. I assume you'll use
BMP for the Fund bean and will always load the bean from the database when
it is needed - i.e. never cache it. Main issue will be if you need to use
both EBs in a transaction which updates the fund detail table - either
deadlock or incorrect Fund results.
Ian McCallion
CICS Business Unit
IBM Hursley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: ++44-1962-818065
Fax: ++44-1962-818069
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
