Armin wrote: > I think your analysis is correct and the listener show the expected > behavior, see javadoc > > http://db.apache.org/ojb/api/org/apache/ojb/broker/PersistenceBroker.html#addListener(org.apache.ojb.broker.PBListener) > > the temporary listener will only be removed on the PB.close() call. It's > strongly recommended to close each used PB instance immediately after > use (or guarantee that it is happen sometime), because only in this case > OJB is able to do all needed cleanup. All PB instances are pooled, so > this procedure doesn't affect performance. > Here is a usage example > http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/tutorials/pb-tutorial.html#A+First+Look+-+Persisting+New+Objects > > Did you use the PB-api in the same way?
Apparantly not ;-) Seriously, I've studied the example you quote before I started coding, but I interpreted it wrongly. I though I would be save if I requested a PersistenceBroker only once and then reused it throughout my application (as long as I used one instance per thread as I learned the hard way ;-). > Why is it inefficient? Because we use System.arraycopy calls? How many > active listener do you use between PB lookup and close? There is no problem if I use the PB api the way you describe. I will fix my application to close the broker after use and reopen an new one when needed. This will probably even simplify my code because I do not need ThreadLocal variables to keep track of a single PersistenceBroker object per thread anymore. Thanks for the tip and thanks for a great product! OJB has saved me hundreds of hours of development time and helped me eradicate almost all traces of SQL from my application ;-) Regards, Pieter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
