True. That would mean that either null objects could not be cached, or inserts would have to also update the cache.
Larry On 6/29/05, Daniel Henrique Ferreira e Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I may be saying something really stupid, so, please, be cool with me! ;-) > > Based on what Brandon stated i have one question: > > How would that work for inserts? When you update or delete an object, > its identity is kept. But insert is supposed to be used for 'new' > objects, so i guess it should flush the whole cache anyway. > > Thoughts? > > > Cheers, > Daniel Silva. > > > > On 6/28/05, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was kinda discussing this with larry last night. Maybe we could have > > a typed cache that allows identity to be defined based on object > > properties. So, only a certain type of object could be placed into > > that cache and anything that is placed into the cache would need to > > conform to the particular type. Perhaps a list could be decomposed to > > examine it's contents. > > > > For example: > > > > <cacheModel type="IDENTITY" id="myIdCache"> > > <property name="type" value="myPersonObject" > > <property name="identity-properties" value="firstName,lastName"> > > <flushOnExecute id="insert"/> > > <flushOnExecute id="update"/> > > <flushOnExecute id="delete"/> > > </cacheModel> > > > > - the type property would specify the type of object that cache would hold > > > > - the identity-properties would be the combination of property values > > that gave the object it's unique identity (getters/setters). > > > > - when the flushOnExecute happens the parameter class must also be of > > the same type as those stored in the cache and it could selectively > > update/remove cache items based on the criteria. > > > > I know this is a REALLY rough idea. But, if it fuels other ideas that > > would be great. > > > > Brandon > > > > On 6/28/05, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Might be worthwhile to start a wiki whiteboard page to discuss how this > > > could be done. > > > > > > Without object identity, it would be quite hard. We could perhaps base it > > > on .equals()/.hashCode() (hashcode not for uniqueness, but for > > > performance). > > > > > > > > > Other thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Clinton > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/05, Paul Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No, it doesn't, as far as I know, but if you find out that it does, > > > > let me know, because fine-grain cache invalidation is a feature that I > > > > have been wanting ibatis to have for a long time. > > > > > > > > On 6/28/05, Ed Griebel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I've just started looking at it, but doesn't using the OSCache model > > > > > (plugin?) provide finer-grained flushing, based on the key for the > > > > > dependant query? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -ed > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/05, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It will cache several objects returned, depending upon the cache > > > > > > controller specified. One thing to be aware of is that the cache is > > > > > > not aware of object identity - which means that if you update > > > > > > *anything* in that cache, all of the objects in the cache are > > > > > > flushed, > > > > > > not just the one that was updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/05, dragos moraru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HI! > > > > > > > I have a SQL select to return only one resutl each time, something > > > like: > > > > > > > Select * from product where id=#value# > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and i want to cache the results. I don't know if the cache-model > > > > > > > configuration form ibatis will store every object the query > > > > > > > returns > > > or it > > > > > > > will replace each time the last object with the new one returned > > > > > > > by > > > the > > > > > > > select. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
