RE: [OJB-developers] Re: problems with OJB

[Matthew B. <ma...@so...>]

I'd like to support 1 (the way OJB works now), and the array of data-objects
in the cache, not the business object itself (as Jakob mentions).

I will then have to handle the update scenario as outlined in my previous
email.

Any objections?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jakob Braeuchi [mailto:jbr...@ho...] 
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 8:32 AM
To: 'Mahler Thomas '; Matthew Baird; 'Objectbridge (E-Mail) '
Subject: [OJB-developers] Re: problems with OJB

hi matthew,

> load BAR (VM1)
> serialize BAR to VM2 set some attributes
> serialize BAR back to VM1 for update
> load FOO, now the FOO refers to the old BAR, not the updated BAR.

i think this is always a problem when serializing objects.

i'm not a big cache expert but imho strategies 4 and 5 are not to be
preferred.
5 relies too much on the developer of the business object.

4 may result in bad performance

3 when using a setter on the proxy where does the data go ?
p.setName("tom"); you propose to ignore this setter but when later issueing
getName() do i get "tom"
or the previous data ?

2 afaik castor uses a similar strategy but they store an array of
data-objects in the cache not the business object itself.
after the commit castor updates these data-objects in the cache.

jakob


_______________________________________________________________

Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
Objectbridge-developers mailing list
Obj...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers