[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-370?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12538768
]
Kevin Sutter commented on OPENJPA-370:
--------------------------------------
> I'm a bit concerned about the sentiment behind this statement. I think that
> performance regressions are big deals, and based on what I've seen from the
> performance impact of this patch, I basically think that the patch does not
> work. Sure, it resolves the issue, but it causes regressions in other areas
> of the product. As I mentioned, I'm ok letting things slide for 1.0.1, given
> that I understand that the goal of 1.0.1 is to get a product out. But I do
> not like it, and personally would prefer to see the behavior either fixed in
> a performant manner or backed out, especially in what we are claiming is a
> maintenance branch. And I definitely think that resolving this has to be a
> top priority.
Sorry, but I was reacting to your statements about potentially pulling this fix
from the 1.0.1 release. As you have pointed out, we're a little behind the
eight ball since we're trying to close down the 1.0.1 release for an upcoming
product release. So, pulling the existing fix out of the 1.0.x branch would
affect some of our product test efforts and cause some unnecessary churn (IMHO).
>From a JPA perspective, the use of LoadFetchGroup is an extension. From our
>test efforts, it was shown not to work per our understanding of the
>documentation (and Pinaki's assistance). So, the problems discovered were
>resolved and put into the maintenance release. These were functional fixes.
>We knew there might be some performance concerns, but not being experts in
>this area, we were not aware of how there might be "regressions in other areas
>of the product". I'm assuming you are referring to the JDO extensions...
So, where do we go from here? As you can tell, I would prefer to leave the
fixes in the 1.0.x branch. We have re-opened the Issue. And, when Teresa
comes back, she can take another look at a fix that performs better. If we
can't wait, then somebody else will have to volunteer to take ownership on this
Issue.
Thanks,
Kevin
> LoadFetchGroup annotation was not recognized during the fetch1
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OPENJPA-370
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-370
> Project: OpenJPA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: kernel
> Affects Versions: 1.0.1, 1.1.0
> Reporter: Teresa Kan
> Assignee: Teresa Kan
> Fix For: 1.0.1, 1.1.0
>
> Attachments: OPENJPA_370_2.patch, TestFetchGroup.zip
>
>
> Employee class has a LoadFetchGroup annotation defined on the Rating field,
> when getRating was called, the address should be returned also. However,
> openjpa did not handle the LoadFetchGroup correctly, therefore, address was
> not eargly fetched.
> public class FGEmployee{
> @Id
> private int id;
>
> @OneToOne(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
> private FGAddress address;
>
> @Basic(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
> @LoadFetchGroup("AddressFetchGroup")
> private String rating;
>
> @ManyToOne(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
> private FGManager manager;
> ..
> }
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
