That was me.
I agree, we shouldn't force finders to run under active transaction.
The reason for the change was a bug in cleaning ReadAheadCache.
I'll look at it.
alex
Friday, June 27, 2003, 3:11:02 AM, Scott Stark wrote:
SMS So why was this change made? There is a difference between yelling
Alexey,
Did you make this change or was it me? Either way, I think it is my
fault as I was the one that re-enabled running with out a transaction
and didn't add any integration tests.
-dain
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 02:07 AM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
That was me.
I agree, we shouldn't
Hello Dain,
That was me. I switched to TransactionLocal in ReadAheadCache.
Before that, just List and Map were used for caching and there were
issues with their cleanning which affected subsequent transactions.
As the stacktrace shows, the exception occurs right in
So why was this change made? There is a difference between yelling at
the user for running under a scenario with potentially n^2 related
performance degradation and breaking a working app.
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
