The first implementation of the read-ahead messed around with the caches
before I decided that I didn't like it and took that out.
-danch
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Jay,
>
> Great point. Up until I started on this code, no part of JBossCMP worked
> with the other container objects (cache, invoker etc); JBossCMP was executed
> by the container via the persistence store interface. I'm going to have to
> think about this.
>
> Thanks for helping to clarify my bad feeling,
>
> -dain
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jay Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:01 PM
>>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>>Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Where is everyone today?
>>
>>
>>I would think you'd want to be out of the guts too, that just
>>seems a bit
>>too closely coupled with JBoss for the persistence manager.
>>Shouldn't the
>>CMP persistence manager be some type of layer on top (well
>>almost on top)
>>with a well defined interface? This should clearly tie in to
>>take advantage
>>of what the container can provide.
>>
>>I am definitely on the outside of JBoss though, so marc et al
>>are the people
>>to listen to.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:53 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Where is everyone today?
>>
>>
>>Yo Dain,
>>
>>I know absolutely nothing about CMP 2.x Relationships, but it makes me
>>really worried that you are working directly with
>>EntityEnterpriseContexts
>>from the container.cache. Why aren't you going through the
>>HOME interfaces
>>to access related beans? Remember, each entity type can have entirely
>>different datastores, caching mechanisms, locking mechanisms,
>>synchronization mechanisms, and pooling mechanisms. You
>>shouldn't really be
>>circumventing how to access a bean. If I'm totally out of my
>>league here,
>>I'll just apologize and shut up. Let me know, but in the
>>meantime, I'll try
>>to review the CMP 2.x Relationships.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>>>
>>Behalf Of Dain
>>
>>>Sundstrom
>>>Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:22 PM
>>>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>>>Subject: [JBoss-dev] Where is everyone today?
>>>
>>>
>>>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
