> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
> fleury
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] No storeEntity before ejbFind<METHOD>
>
>
> |Yeah, double serialization, but isn't keeping an isUpdated table just
> |overkill and a pain in the ass? Maybe not I guess, set the flag
> |to true for
> |each entity after you do the finder synch. Set it to false after every
> |method invocation that could possibly change the state of the entity.
> |You're right, I'll put this in....Thanks for discussing this issue.
>
> the idea that you are aware of the impact of the feature. Right
> now I would
> recommend XP meaning put the feature you really need and try to
> minimize the
> amount of code you can screw up.
>
> In other words, don't commit that last "tuned" feature, if you are not
> absolutely sure about the new "updates" let's try without it
> since the case
> you describe will be minimally used (and therefore we won't pay the price
> and if you use it, using isModified and tuned updates will give the same
> result) so screw that feature if keeping the isUpdated table is overkill.
>
Exactly my thoughts. I'm confident, but not THAT confident.....I'll make
sure that the ChangeLog/comments reflect this new "feature"
> |On another note, I view this change not as a "feature", but rather a bug
> |fix, an ejb spec violation. It's kind of significant when I think
> |about it.
>
> hmm i don't remember that feature from 1.1 days, sounds like a
> 2.0 feature.
Again, it's common sense(at least in my brain ;-) why they changed it.(Plus
our app needs the change anyways....)
> As such it is great that you add it to be compliant. And sure sure, it is
> the most important feature of the server ;-)
>
Most important? Oh yah, But of course!(*snicker, *snicker), :-)
> |If you modify an entity within a transaction, a subsequent finder query
> |should be able to pick up the entity change. The example from before,
> |should work, but doesn't with the current version of jboss. Also common
> |sense dictates it should work as well, (at least in my messed up brain).
>
> ummmm that I really don't agree with, that database guys can see
> the change
> outside the commit within the same transaction seems kind of
> funky to me...
> but it is in the spec so...
>
I disagree(but its not really important who's right here :-)
It would happen if you were doing the same logic with JDBC in the same
transaction, why shouldn't EJBs work the same way?
Again, thanks for your time.
Later,
Bill
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
