Okay, but that is exactly the point: How can the container
sync with the database if the container does *NOT* get notified
of a "direct delete" ???
punit malik writes:
> Synch is not the responsibility of dbms, but of container.
>
> Punit
>
> >
> >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".
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
