> > > Right but I think this happens with the OJB single-cache strategy, too. > > > If i change an Object held in the cache and don't do a store (and it is > > > not stored via auto-update) it is left changed but not committed in the > > > cache. > > > > > > > And won't this cause a problem if there is another request for this object? > > If those not committed changes are wanted, the programmer probably > simply has forgotten to store the object. > In the other case, when the changes are not wanted, > the programmer should remove the object from the cache to force a refetch > on the next request. > > If the object doesn't get stored or removed from cache you got the problem > of having inconsistent data in the cache. >
Look at my just posted answer and tell me how you would ensure that the code in TX1 can ensure that TX2 does not get the object in the cache before TX1 removes it from the cache ? Removing the object from the cache does not remove another threads reference to the object ?! /max -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
