Is everyone on vacation? Is the list working? What-ever, doesn't really
matter.
If any one is around today, and can reply to my message, I would greatly
appreciate it. I kind of need some guidance on the decision to create an
interceptor or not. I'm going to continue along the line that I don't need
an interceptor (I can always add it later).
If you all are on vacation, have a great time.
-dain
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:48 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CMP 2.x Relationships Implementation
>
>
> marc,
>
> Do you mean that I should be setting invoked, or something else?
>
> I got the bi-directional one-to-one (enforced integrity)
> working using the
> entity cache, but it gives me a bad feeling. In the this
> case, there may be
> up to 4 beans that need to be stored:
>
> before:
> a1--b1
> a2--b2
>
> a1.setB(b2)
>
> after:
> a1\ b1
> a2 \b2
>
> So, I hold onto up to three other contexts. When my store is
> called, I write
> my state and then store the other contexts (with their
> respective mangers).
> This won't cause extraneous writes as 'tuned updates' is always on.
>
> What is giving me the bad feeling is I have just cut out all
> of the work
> that is being done in the interceptors, specifically
> EntitySynchronizationInterceptor. For example, do I need to remove the
> context from the cache at the end of the transaction? Do I
> need to lock the
> context? What if one of the beans is removed? (the new remove
> procedure for
> relationships may handle this, but haven't implemented it yet)
>
> As you can tell this has given me a lot of concern. If this is stuff I
> shouldn't worry about, good. If I should worry, will it be
> better to create
> the new interceptor, thus reusing the code in the other
> interceptors, or
> will it be easier to handle the few special cases in the
> persistence store?
>
> -dain
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:53 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CMP 2.x Relationships Implementation
> >
> >
> > also be sure to report right here is you touch any of the
> > information in the
> > ctx (using setters)
> >
> > marcf
> >
> > |-----Original Message-----
> > |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Dain
> > |Sundstrom
> > |Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:45 PM
> > |To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > |Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CMP 2.x Relationships Implementation
> > |
> > |
> > |> | The only way I can find to get a ctx for a pk
> > |> |is from EntityInstanceInterceptor, and the only way to
> get to the
> > |> |EntityInstanceInterceptor is container.invoke(mi).
> > |>
> > |> no no no it's in the cache,
> > |>
> > |> container.cache.get(id) (or something like that)
> > |>
> > |> marcf
> > |>
> > |
> > |YES! Thanks so much. I didn't want to write the interceptor.
> > |This is going
> > |to be way easier. I'm going to go code now.
> > |
> > |-dain
> > |
> > |_______________________________________________
> > |Jboss-development mailing list
> > |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > |http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jboss-development mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
