FWIW, I just posted an initial patch to bug 1676 at
http://bugzilla.exolab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676
Please read the comments carefully, as there still is one or two limitations I need to
iron out .. ;-). But all in all, things are working pretty good, and I am
more interested to get feedback on the new requirements and what people think of it.
Thanks
Werner
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:41:20 +0200, Werner Guttmann wrote:
>
>Stephen,
>
>I am still in the process of readying a first patch for this feature. In the
>meantime, I'd like to bounce the following issue with you and everybody else
>interested. It looks like the only way to go about a solution for this is via dynamic
>proxies. This implies that ...
>
>a) support for 1:1 lazy loading will only be available for people using JDK 1.3 and
>up.
>b) I'll need to introduce a new requirement to get this working. For any class that
>you want to lazy load as part of a simple 1:1 relation, you'll need to
>have an interface. I checked with other tools like OJB, as it looks like they have
>taken the same approach. Which comes as no surprise as dynamic
>proxies depend on interfaces.
>
>FWIW
>Werner
>
>On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:48:31 -0400, Stephen Ince wrote:
>
>>
>>No problem about testing lazy-loading 1:1. This would of course help loading
>>of large about objects.
>>I will work on a performance patch for top-level objects with large number
>>of dependent children.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Werner Guttmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:47 AM
>>Subject: Re: [castor-dev] JDO object creation performance flaw
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, if that's the case .. ;-), what would you think about helping us
>>with testing new code, whether it's a feature such as support for
>>lazy-loading 1:1
>>> relations or support for the transient attribute at the <sql> level. Right
>>now, I've got a patch posted for the transient support, and I'd be very
>>interested to
>>> get some hands-on comments.
>>>
>>> Interested ?
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:10:17 +0100, Gregory Block wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >On 29 Jun 2004, at 15:18, Stephen Ince wrote:
>>> >> Steve --> I think it is an issue for 1:m relations and not for 1:1
>>> >> relations.
>>> >
>>> >At this point, anything which can be done to offer the capability to
>>> >fragment and delay queries is good; more importantly, if that partial
>>> >loading then uses the cache, anything with 1:1 mappings where the other
>>> >half of the 1 in question is shared by many should instantly see an
>>> >improvement.
>>> >
>>> >So thumbs up on that lazy-load of 1:1, it's still good to see. :)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>>> >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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>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
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
