Hi!, Going through the spec( refer pg. 97 fig. 20 section 8.4) my interpertation is also the same as yours . EJBObject in a state of "exists and is refrenced" moves to "does not exist and refrenced" state by direct delete . Now if client which has the EJBObject refrence invokes a business method a NoSuchObjectException would be thrown. i.e EJB 1.1 container must remove the EJBObject, when its corresponding record has been "direct deleted" from the database? Any comments from vendors and others on this -----Original Message----- Shiraz Wasim Zaidi From: Rubens Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 1:06 AM Subject: EJBObject "direct delete" >On the EJB 1.1 spec, section 8.4, it says >"Also, an EJB object may be deleted directly using other >means than the remove() operation (e.g. by deletion of a database >record). The direct insert and direct delete transitions in >the diagram represent such direct database manipulation." > >Does the above statement mean that an EJB 1.1 container >must remove the EJBObject, when its corresponding >record has been "direct deleted" from the database? > >But how can the container remove the EJBObject if the database >does *not* notify the container of a direct delete? > >Am I missing something? > >-- >Rubens. > >=========================================================================== >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".
