And if anyone bothers to check it, can someone please go thru the multiple
datasources code I'd sent? It only makes sense to have it at a bean level -
cannot think of an enterprise app connecting to single database!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dain Sundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Where is everyone today?
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
