To me, default doesn't matters... Just be really clear in DOCS that the
changes are made, because I've a near to 265000 loc here that uses
either RemovalAware and Non-RemovalAware behaviour...
Best regards,
Edson Richter
Armin Waibel wrote:
Steve Clark wrote:
Armin Waibel writes:
Armin> ooh, seems I made a mistake in the test cases repository I
Armin> don't specified a "non-removeaware" collection-class. Maybe
Armin> I should read the docs before I start writing the next test
Armin> cases ;-).
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is yet another very clear
demonstration that the default behavior is counterintuitive. It
really seems that it would be better for non-RemovalAwareCollection to
be the default, with RemovalAwareCollection available as an option for
those who want that behavior.
I agree with you, but some time ago the argument for using
RemovalAwareCollections as default collection-class was to make PB-api
delete collection objects behaviour similar to the ODMG-api. I don't
know when we change collection-class, but originally
non-RemovalAwareCollection was used as default one.
If most OJB user vote for an rollback to non-RAC, we can switch back
again (hopefully the last time ;-)).
As an alternative I will have a look in source and try to make default
collection-class pluggable via OJB.properties file. If it will be
possible, we can satisfy both strategies.
regards,
Armin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
