This is great! Just a few questions.
> We could create a value object for this table called BookVObj that has variable
>with the
> same names as the table columns that might look like this:
Should value objects be immutable? I've been thinking about freezing
them after they are added to the cache. I worry that once and object is
in the cache it could be shared between any number of threads, so
contention becomes an issue. For simplicity one might just create a new
value object and replace the old one in the cache with it. Is this how
you do things or do you have a different strategy?
> /**
> * Stores BookVObj's in database. Clears old items and caches new.
> *
> */
> public int storeBookVObj( BookVObj vObj ) {
>
> try {
>
> // since any cached data is no longer valid, we should
> // remove the item from the cache if it an update.
> if ( vObj.book_id_pk != 0 ) {
> bookCache.remove( "BookVObj" + vObj.book_id_pk );
> }
Is this (the removal) necessary? I would think that the put that follows
would cause the object to be replaced, and that invalidation would
propagate to any remote / lateral caches. ( As a nice secondary effect,
removing this makes this method exactly the same as the code that stores
the object in loadVObj, nice bit of refactoring potential =)
-- jt
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
