that is present
in the memory at a time?
thanks,
Prasanth.
From: Jeff Schnitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Orion-Interest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Orion-Interest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better?
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:22:17 -0800
From: Curt Smith [mailto
www.elephantwalker.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of prasanth sb
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:20 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better?
Hi Jeff and other dear friends,
I had this doubt
statement in your custom finder.
Regards,
the elephantwalker
www.elephantwalker.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of prasanth sb
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:20 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better
There are several constraints to BMP beans which make them almost always
perform slower than CMP beans. In particular, the inability to bulk
load beans from finder methods is a nearly fatal defect.
I'd like to know more of the details?
How does the container deal with the following finder
9:21 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: Re: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better?
There are several constraints to BMP beans which make them almost always
perform slower than CMP beans. In particular, the inability to bulk
load beans from finder methods is a nearly fatal defect.
I'd like
Of Curt Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:21 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: Re: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better?
There are several constraints to BMP beans which make them almost always
perform slower than CMP beans. In particular, the inability to bulk
load beans from
From: Curt Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There are several constraints to BMP beans which make them almost
always
perform slower than CMP beans. In particular, the inability to bulk
load beans from finder methods is a nearly fatal defect.
I'd like to know more of the details?
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:11 PM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 vs BMP - Which performes better?
If performance is the only factor, BMP performs a million times faster
than CMP. Well, may be not that much faster, but you get the point.
CMP is for ease of development
If performance is the only factor, BMP performs a million times faster
than CMP. Well, may be not that much faster, but you get the point.
CMP is for ease of development, basically the container does all the
work for you, but it is not as flexible and you cannot fine tune the
query like you can
The bug has been entered into the system as bug #349. It includes a thorough
description.
R.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Randahl Fink
Isaksen
Sent: 1. marts 2001 22:48
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
God point - I'll report
Title: RE: CMP 2.0
Thanks, Tim
I just
dived into chapter 16 (Transactions) and it is clear that there is definately
important stuff there which needs to be taken into consideration to avoid
errors. However, it turned out that the reason for the problem I described was
the fact that I had
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: 1. marts 2001 02:42
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
?
I have all my transactional behavior defined as NotSupported and I use
EJB 2.0 container managed relationships without issue. I don't
currently need transactions
, March 01, 2001 1:19 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
As I just posted, Jeff. The error was due to the fact that I
had declared my
primary keys as Integer but I returned the primitive type int from my
ejbCreate methods. As soon as I changed this, everything
worked fine. I am
(to put
Title: RE: CMP 2.0
But its java that compiles, not Orion.
-Original Message-
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:19 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
As I just posted, Jeff. The error was due to the fact that I had
Title: RE: CMP 2.0
You
are right, Matt, but I am afraid I consider that irrellevant. When the
developerdeploys his application on Orion, he should not worry
abouthow Orion builds the beansand whether ituses the JDK or
anything else in the process of doing so - he should just expect it to do
God point - I'll report it as a bug in Bugzilla.
Randahl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: 1. marts 2001 12:16
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
I've heard comments on this list in the past from Karl Magnus
Title: RE: CMP 2.0
I've been out for a few days, so it this has been answered,
sorry for the repost.
This sounds like you didn't set the transactional behavior
in ejb-jar.xml as required. There is no default behavior
in the spec so it is up to the container to decide what
the default
-Original Message-
From: Tim Drury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:34 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0
I've been out for a few days, so it this has been answered,
sorry for the repost.
This sounds like you didn't set the transactional behavior
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Question A: Are the ones of you who are using CMP 2.0 using
version 1.4.4,
1.4.5 or 1.4.7 of Orion?
I'm using 1.4.5 because 1.4.7 introduced a showstopper bug for me (fixed
in 1.4.8, whenver that happens). Bug #296.
Question B: When _you_
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:18 PM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 OR mapping problem
Bidirectional relationships do not yet work.
There are two workarounds that have worked for me
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:18 PM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: RE: CMP 2.0 OR mapping problem
Bidirectional relationships do not yet work.
There are two workarounds that have worked for me:
Manually add (and remove!) both sides of the relationship. So your
Marketplace.addStorefront
mne: RE: CMP 2.0 OR mapping problem
Thanks for the reply. We were already doing this, and I realized how
repetitive it was and hoped that 1.4.7 could cut the time we
spent doing
this (we have a lot of these relationships). Does anyone
have a guess as to
when full EJB 2.0 support
Bidirectional relationships do not yet work.
There are two workarounds that have worked for me:
Manually add (and remove!) both sides of the relationship. So your
Marketplace.addStorefront() method would look like this:
void addStorefront(Storefront front)
{
23 matches
Mail list logo
