> this mess, nor am I just tring to "show off" in the list. Nobody likes a
> smart ass, and neither do I. I just felt that going specific
> "FastKey" on an
> architcture-level issue "Object" could bring trouble in the future.
Yes I agree, and already coded part of it. Andreas was with me this
Saturday and we XP'd the solution to that. Frankly moving Object is easy
and only the cache needs to know about it.
In clear: the architecture doesn't move.
In fact the only lingering issues is the client that needs a PrimaryKey and
the cache representation there is no way around it.
marc
>
> Hugo Jos� Pinto
>
> > This way we can plug in cache and their way of managing internal keys
> (maybe
> > direct DB keys or FastKeys) or just the current way of doing
> it, which in
> > the case of the (broken) base would be
> >
> > NoPassivationInstanceCache {
> >
> > public Object generateCacheKey(Object id) {
> >
> > return id; // ;-)
> > }
> >
> > In the case of FastKey would be
> >
> > NoPassivationInstanceCache {
> > return new FastKey(id); file://and basta
> > }
> >
> > the old code comes back in the container, but works, and only the cache
> > needs to be aware of it, not even the JRMPcontainer invoker
> needs to know
> > about it. The local proxies still need to be able to interpret
> a fastKey
> > but that is about it.
> >
> > One way to make the client transparent is to provide a Loose object that
> can
> > take native keys and or cache keys (like the FastKey today but
> without the
> > typing)... next XP excercise :)))
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc fleury
> > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:57 AM
> > > To: jBoss Developer
> > > Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Marc (& Rickard): Architecture "tweak"?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rickard �berg
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:42 AM
> > > > To: jBoss Developer
> > > > Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Marc (& Rickard): Architecture "tweak"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > marc fleury wrote:
> > > > > > This is what I pointed to in my post: "Re: [jBoss-Dev] what is
> > > > > > fastCache". I don't agree with this change too. Should be
> > > Object, and
> > > > > > then cast to FastKey for our impl.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not a problem, minor.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you want the architecture to be reliant on this
> tweak? It seems
> > > > like an implementation choice for the distribution plugin+cache.
> > >
> > > Rickard when I say "not a problem, minor" i mean, not a problem
> > > to change to
> > > Object (i have to rethink about it)...
> > >
> > > Also, let's stop the design bla bla for a second.
> > >
> > > It didn't work. It works now.
> > >
> > > I will try to code it Object. Like I said I started by doing
> > > that, cause I
> > > know you pus*ies don't like interface changes, I then decided to
> > > do FastKey
> > > to make it work and compile. To factor the implementation to
> > > Object is NOT
> > > A PROBLEM!
> > >
> > > marc
> > >
> > > PS: One thing I REALLY want to do is fix the cache lookup and locking
> > > mechanism... bad if you ask me <g>. Interfaces are cheap.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > /Rickard
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rickard �berg
> > > >
> > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > http://www.telkel.com
> > > > http://www.jboss.org
> > > > http://www.dreambean.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
