On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> The thing is that Johan wanted to experiment with having the UoW backed > directly by a tx. If that is done, then all reads/writes are done directly > to a node. apply() would then simply commit the transaction, and not have to > do much work. This obviously messes up the distinction between UoW and tx, And it also messes with our "unit of work stack"... Perhaps the idea was that transactions are paused/resumed in sync with which UnitOfWork that is requesting changes? > The string value in the store is not deserialized to a ValueComposite > properly? Shouldn't the CCE happen somewhere else than the test then (qi4j.compacttrace=off) ? Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
