https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Nick Burch nick.bu...@alfresco.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50060
Nick Burch nick.bu...@alfresco.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50060
--- Comment #3 from Nick Burch nick.bu...@alfresco.com 2010-10-22 12:42:31
EDT ---
FWIW, I've added some more testing in r1026399. This shows we do have a serious
issue with read + write + read + write not working, but read + write + read
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
Nick Burch nick.bu...@alfresco.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
---
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Yegor Kozlov wrote:
It turned out it is NOT so, getXXArray() is way faster than getXXXList(). I
analyzed the auto-generated source code and found that they work differently.
A call of getXXXArray() performs an XPATH request to the underlying DOM and
returns the selected
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50118
Nick Burch nick.bu...@alfresco.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
It turned out it is NOT so, getXXArray() is way faster than getXXXList(). I
analyzed the auto-generated source code and found that they work differently.
A call of getXXXArray() performs an XPATH request to the underlying DOM and
returns the selected beans.
A call of getXXXList() does
