Phil,
There won't be a problem unless your database's locking is too granular.
More important, is why do you want to make lookup values entities? Why not have a
stateless session bean which returns the appropriate lookup object(s) (id,
description, value) directly from the DB or from an in memory cache? You can provide
methods in this bean add/remove objects which updates both the cache and
the DB. This is a lot more efficient that entity beans for frequently used but seldom
updated data.
--Victor Langelo
Phil Lewis wrote:
> Is this OK?
>
> The reason I ask , is that in our physical DB schema we have a 'lookup'
> table with a structure like:
>
> lupID
> lupType
> lupDescription
> lupValue
>
> This is used throughout a legacy system for storing general data values. For
> example, several combo boxes available in the UI have configurable comtents.
> A typical example would be a 'severity' combo. The app allows an admin user
> to specify the values to list in this combo. This is done by modifying
> lookup entries with a particular lupType.
>
> We are now developing a EJB app that will use the same DB schema, and it
> seems to me that there is a possible argument for treating each of the
> lupTypes as different Entity components. From a component modelling point of
> view, this makes a lot of sense.
>
> For example, we would want an entity component called InternetSearchEngine,
> and another called SeverityValue. In future applications of the components,
> they may mapo onto different tables, but in the current implementaion, they
> would both map onto the same database table, one with a lupType of (eg) 1,
> and onther with a lupType of (eg) 2.
>
> So, that's why I want to do it, the question is, that it seems to me that it
> may not be a good idea to have differnt entity beans looking at the same
> table. We are to be using bean managed persistence, but container managed
> transactions. We are developing to the J2EE spec, in an effort to maintain
> app server independence, and so cannot take advantage of any vendor specific
> facilities.
>
> Is this an advisable course of action, or should I stick with a single
> LookUpValue entity?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
>
> Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily
>Knowledge Management Software plc. This email and any files transmitted with it are
>confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to
>the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and
>that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please
>notify the Systems Manager by telephone on 44 (0) 161 227 9009
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
===========================================================================
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".
