Stephen, a couple of random observations .... mostly inline. But before doing so, can I please ask you respect the mailing list guidelines for this mailing list and refrain from sending text/html messages.
Regards Werner --Original Message Text--- From: Stephen Ince Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:26:24 -0400 I just wanted to start the discourse. I think in general open source projects are not that strong in the design review process. werner --> What makes you think that his statement is correct ? I have been working for companies sich as Clearstream and Morgan Stanley, and in general I think the reverse is correct. But it would be correct to say that a open source project is only as good as it users and the code that is being contributed by the community. As it stands now, we are three committers working on several critical and no-critical issues, incl. refactoring and redesign of various system aspects. If you had been familiar with several of the discussions going on at http://bugzilla.exolab.org, you might rethink what you've just said. Wrt your problem, I still have to find out whether you are using vanilla 1:M relations between web_resource and all the other classes or whether you are using DEPEND relations (as well). This would have probably been caught in design review. werner --> Yes, it should have been. But where have you been when this feature has been designed ? See, it's all about perception and how far you are willig to go towards contributing code/design/functionality/etc. I for myself would enthusiastically welcome any contribution from you, indeed. I think it would be beneficial if the group could collectively agree on a solution before any implementation is done. werner --> If the above statement were to be replaced with 'I think it would be beneficial if the group could collectively work towards an implementation', I'd be the first one to contribute, as I plan to add support for lazy-loading simple 1:1 relations. werner --> I hope this does not come across as too harsh, as I genuinly do not have any intentions to upset you. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gregory Block To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [castor-dev] JDO object creation performance flaw On 28 Jun 2004, at 23:52, Stephen Ince wrote: Castor should probably use separate queries to load the dependent objects. On our own project, I must admit, we hit this. Big time. Performance suffered dreadfully; our only recourse was to hand-code getters to lazy load on use, rather than try to load them all in individual queries. We've since gone a very different route - using memcached to distribute cached objects into a distributed pool of out-of-JVM caches that we run in the live service, and moved all of our queries out of OQL-based object loads into cache lookups and pinpoint loading of individual IDs through db.load, preserving object instances in cache, including instances common to more than one object. Anything that can be done to improve the performance of that call is appreciated. ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
