pe.apache.org
Subject: RE: Persistence id generation strategy: TABLE vs AUTO
Hi,
Fabio and Francesco: thanks for the fast feedback.
I cannot remember the good reason for this differences but it there was
...
In our experience with Apache Syncope (especially at the beginning)
there
are troubles with
ject: RE: Persistence id generation strategy: TABLE vs AUTO
>
> Hi,
>
> Fabio and Francesco: thanks for the fast feedback.
>
> > > I cannot remember the good reason for this differences but it there was
> ...
> > > In our experience with Apache Syncope (especi
Hi,
Fabio and Francesco: thanks for the fast feedback.
> > I cannot remember the good reason for this differences but it there was ...
> > In our experience with Apache Syncope (especially at the beginning) there
> are troubles with AUTO generated id in case of high concurrence.
>
> Not only: so
On 11/01/2013 11:21, Fabio Martelli wrote:
Il giorno 11/gen/2013, alle ore 11.00, Andrei Shakirin ha scritto:
Hi,
Working on integration tests improvement (1), I discovered that almost all
persistence beans have TABLE generated Id strategy defined in orm.xml: user,
role, membership, mapping,
Il giorno 11/gen/2013, alle ore 11.00, Andrei Shakirin ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Working on integration tests improvement (1), I discovered that almost all
> persistence beans have TABLE generated Id strategy defined in orm.xml: user,
> role, membership, mapping, connInstance, attr.
> Anyway AUTO
Hi,
Working on integration tests improvement (1), I discovered that almost all
persistence beans have TABLE generated Id strategy defined in orm.xml: user,
role, membership, mapping, connInstance, attr.
Anyway AUTO generated Id strategy is defined for following of the persistence
beans: Abstrac
