Hi Craig,
This is assuming that both the beans are on the same jvm
I dont see this kind of a scenario working on the two SSB's on different
JVM's. Correct?
"The UserObject pattern is intended for applications that need to
access some local state that is associated with the persistence
context"
A
Hi Karan,
Yes, this use case is absolutely supported, assuming that transaction
propagation is in effect.
If there is no transaction propagation, you can still achieve the same
effect if you pass a "live" object from one bean to another:
class SSBA {
pm = pmf.getPM();
SomeState ss = new SomeStat
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-153?page=comments#action_12330879 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-153:
---
The patch looks fine. It's interesting how many lines of code need to be
modified just to change /1.1.3/1.2.5/g
Craig
> Upgrade springfra
Hi Karan,
yes, I think this should work.
Regards Michael
Hi Michael,
I am thinking of a scenario where it can be used. Correct me if i am wrong.
lets say a stateless session bean (Container managed transaction), has a
method
method A(){
// get the pm
pm.setUserObject(new Object());
B();
pm.clo
Hi Michael,
I am thinking of a scenario where it can be used. Correct me if i am wrong.
lets say a stateless session bean (Container managed transaction), has a
method
method A(){
// get the pm
pm.setUserObject(new Object());
B();
pm.close();
}
another session bean has
method B(){
//get
Hi,
We will have our regular meeting Friday, September 30 at 9 am PDT to
discuss JDO TCK issues and status.
Dial-in numbers are:
866 230-6968 294-0479#
International: +1 865 544-7856
Agenda:
Test status (Michael W)
Detached objects (Matthew)
Query tests (Michael, Michael)
Maven console i
Hi Karan,
Hi Craig,
Thanks.
What happens to the user object once i close the pm?
I think nothing will happen. Accoring to the spec a user object is not
inspected or used in any way by the JDO implementation.
Regards Michael
On 9/29/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ka
Hi Craig,
Thanks.
What happens to the user object once i close the pm?
On 9/29/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Karan,
>
> The UserObject pattern is intended for applications that need to
> access some local state that is associated with the persistence
> context. Any persiste
Hi Karan,
The UserObject pattern is intended for applications that need to
access some local state that is associated with the persistence
context. Any persistent object can navigate to its persistence manager
and access some application-specific data.
This turned out to be very useful in JDO, so
Hi Craig,
What is the purpose of get/setUserObject in the pm api? What would be the
use-case where i would use these methods?
--
Karan Malhi
Hi Martin,
thanks for the comments!
About the issue of a class argument of a wrong classloader passed to the
JavaModel method getJavaType: I agree the code should use the class
loader from the class object. The only issue is that the call
clazz.getClassLoader() might result in a SecurityExcep
Hi Andy,
I agree that inheritance mapping 2 is missing some orm information wrt
Employee relationships. Due to this lack, implementations cannot figure
out the right runtime type at navigation time, e.g. navigating from
Project to Employee.
For this reason we need to adapt the orm and the sc
Hi Michael,
thanks for the patch, only a few cosmetic comments inline, below.
I'll send out a summary of our discussion on the jdk 1.5 class
registration problem and the chosen approach later.
Martin
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Martin,
attached you find a patch for the JDOModel implementation.
13 matches
Mail list logo