Hey
Dan OConnor wrote:
> Well, more complicated plus it won't work to specify "no
> transaction." :-)
>
> I'm one of the "some people" who complained about the hard-coded
> special behavior for methods named getXXX. It's just not that much
> of a stretch to imagine a getter method with side-effects. A flag
> works for me, as does isModified.
+1.
> What works best, of course, is an EJB 2.0 persistence manager.
> I'm curious if anyone's done some thinking or prototyping.
Welll.. you have! ;-) Or so I'd guess anyway since you wrote that
excellent DB/CMP article some time ago.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
