Here is my problem. I have the following model (0.9.8, single VM)
A contains a B.
I have the following data.
A1 containing B3 and A2 containing B3
A1 and A2 are loaded (so they should be in the cache)
B3 shoud also be in the cache.
I update A1.
I load A1 and A2.
At this point, it appears that:
A2 came from the cache
A1 did not come from the cache.
The B pointed to by A1 and A2 are no longer the same B (== fails, to
put it in Java terms)
It appears that updating A1 has flushed A1 and B3 from the cache?
Is this correct behavior?
ObjectEnvelopeTable.commit() contains the following.... command line of
code...
// in a distributed environment all broker caches must
invalidate the Object
broker.invalidate(new Identity(mod.getObject(),
transaction.getBroker()));
However, it appears that the singlevm is flushing the object from the cache
also.
Personnally, I would really rather not have objects removed from the cache
just because I update them.
This is causing me a problem, because I go and load "bunches of A's", and
some come from the cache, and some do not, which means the B's are "who
knows what", and I'm trying to build a "complex" internal data structure,
but when B is inconsistent, thinks don't work well.
Thanks
David Corbin
This message contains information from Equifax Inc. which may be
confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please
refrain from any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this
information and note that such actions are prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify by e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
