Hello,
After using this catch filter for some time we've noticed that instances
of class's that are not supposed to be cachable show up in the cache!
Here's the concrete situation:
Class A is not cachable.
Class B is cachable.
Class B has a reference to class A.
- Reading an object that is an instance of class A places no objects
in the cache.
- Reading an object that is an instance of class B places two objects
in the cache (one instance of class B and one instance of class A)!
Is this behavior normal?
Does the reference to class A have to be a proxy for the "not cachable"
to work with references?
Thanks in advanve,
Luis (M)
P.S. The class/table mapping for the described situation follows:
<class-descriptor
class="A"
table="A"
>
<field-descriptor id="1"
name="id"
column="ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
/>
<attribute
attribute-name="cacheable"
attribute-value="false"
/>
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor
class="B"
table="B"
>
<field-descriptor id="1"
name="id"
column="ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
/>
<field-descriptor id="2"
name="keyToA"
column="KEY_TOA"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
/>
<reference-descriptor
name="a"
class-ref="A"
>
<foreignkey field-ref="keyToA"/>
</reference-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
