Thanks for the quick answer. The reason we chose 3.0 over 3.1 is we didn’t want to use a beta version in our production environment. Because we’re scared of that word, "Beta".
No problem with the code mentioned, I gave it a dataContextFactory that behaves like default. I was just curious as to why I should be forced to use a dataContextFactory in order to get my queryCacheFactory accepted, I thought I might be missing something. How far is 3.1 from becoming stable? Le 2014-01-16 à 02:05, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Émile, > > Welcome to the community! > > Looks suspect to me too :) The good news is that 3.0 is ancient news and > these days stack initialization is handled via dependency injection and more > or less completely outside of the stack objects themselves. > > Not sure if that code is causing you any trouble (if so, let’s discuss), but > in general I would recommend switching to 3.1 beta for your work. > > Andrus > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Emile Salem <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> as a first post to this list, I’d like to ask the following: >> why does the DataDomain need to have a dataContextFactory declared in >> its properties for the assignment of its queryCacheFactory to take place, as >> read on line 258 of org.apache.cayenne.access.DataDomain (3.0.2): >> >> if ((queryCacheFactoryName != null) && (dataContextFactory != null) && >> (!Util.isEmptyString(dataContextFactory))){ >> this.queryCacheFactory = >> ((QueryCacheFactory)createInstance(queryCacheFactoryName, >> QueryCacheFactory.class)); >> } >> else{ >> this.queryCacheFactory = null; >> } >> Thanks for your time >> >> ÉMILE SALEM >> Software Developer >> [email protected]
