I don't see how optimistic locking can have optimization advantages with commit-option B. I thought B's benefit was only for non-transactional method calls.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Dain Sundstrom > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:16 AM > To: Bill Burke > Cc: Henri Chen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] RE: Bug in > EntityMultiInstanceSynchronizationInterceptor.java ? > > > I agree. Commit option B assumes that you can "synchronize the > instance¡¦s state from the persistent storage at the beginning of the > next transaction." We simply don't have any method to to that in 2.4.4 > or the current 3.0 code, other then reload all the data. The optimistic > locking code that I have planed for 3.0 will allow a quick is changed > check with the database. So until then option B doesn't buy you much. > > -dain > > Bill Burke wrote: > > > Commit option B doesn't give you anything anyways in JBoss > unless you are > > doing non-transactional requests on your entity beans. Since this is a > > rarity, I didn't put much thought into commit-b optimizations for the > > multiinstance interceptors. > > > > Bill > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Henri Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:46 AM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Cc: Bill Burke > >>Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] RE: Bug in > >>EntityMultiInstanceSynchronizationInterceptor.java ? > >> > >> > >>Is this implies that there is no Option B in jboss 2.4.4 at all > >>because option B virtually equals to option C? > >> > >>Henri > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill > >>Burke > >>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:09 PM > >>To: Henri Chen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: [JBoss-dev] RE: Bug in > >>EntityMultiInstanceSynchronizationInterceptor.java ? > >> > >> > >>This is because we trash the instance. > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Henri Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:40 AM > >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Subject: Bug in EntityMultiInstanceSynchronizationInterceptor.java ? > >>> > >>> > >>>Dear Bill, > >>> > >>>Sorry to bother you again. This is based on the jboss 2.4.4 > source code. > >>> > >>>According to the ejb 2.0 spec as seen on P.210, in Option B, the > >>>instance should only be marked as "invalid state" inside > >>>afterCompletion(). However, the > >>>EntityMultiInstanceSynchronizationInterceptor.java > >>>implementation of jboss 2.4.4 always calling ejbPassivate() no > >>>matter it is Option B or Option C. > >>> > >>>Henri Chen > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Jboss-development mailing list > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
