Wow, the wrath of Jon, bummer...
Let me *try* to defend myself:
In creating JetspeedPersistenceService.java, I copied
PersistenceServiceImpl.java.
The code is basically the same, but the JetspeedPersistenceService uses a
newer profiler.
I didn't want to modify PersistenceServiceImpl.java, since others may still
want to use the old profiler. Thus I created a new service impl.
Let me state that I don't use "iFoo" conventions, please reference my other
commits.
I know you can argue that I *now* use "iFoo" conventions since I was too
lazy, I rather believe I was too polite, so you do have a point there.
I will change the variable names.
I have also brought up the fact on this mailing list that invocations of the
Persistence Service required multiple 'new' persistence services per
request.
So this means that since the lifetime of the service object is only for one
request, its then safe to 'cache' the RunData, since the service object will
be gone after the request.
This is counter to how I believe services should work, again I've discussed
this on the list.
>From a performance and lifecycle mgt perspective, there are also issues....
In defense of the authors, I believe that the PersistenceService was written
as a 'temporary solution', since the underlying classes used by it i.e. the
PortletSet and PSMLManager are due for some major overhauls. In that spirit,
I left the service as is since it works for now.
Im all for rewriting the Persistence Service to be a Turbine Service. But
when I suggested that, it was argued that we are considering our own service
model for the 'Portal API' that isn't dependent on anything else. The
committers to this service will be able to describe this more, but they are
in Europe so it probably won't be til tomorrow.
Damn, now I suppose that everytime you see my name, you will think "iFoo",
or even worse, the "iFoo Propagator".
Where's there a corner I can hide in....
-- iFoo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: jetspeed
> Subject: FW: JetspeedPersistenceService.java
>
>
> I just want to make sure that you guys aren't caching RunData
> objects...that
> is BAD BAD BAD...those objects should *never* persist longer than the
> current request.
>
> Also, I *hate* it when people name their variables with "iFoo" or
> "aFoo"...this is Java, not C. There are no global variables in Java and it
> is trivial to tell which one you are dealing with within a Class
> and placing
> naming conventions on the variables like that just make things more
> confusing...not less...especially if the rest of the code base
> doesn't look
> anything like that.
>
> :-)
>
> -jon
>
>
> public void store ()
> {
> // store page by page (and let's hope that no exception occurs
> // -> missing transaction integrity is a major concern here!
>
> for (Enumeration e = getPages (); e.hasMoreElements (); )
> {
> Page page = (Page) e.nextElement ();
>
> page.store (iRunData);
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
> List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
