Return-Path: <pelle@alma.nu>
Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org
Received: (qmail 35772 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2003 09:57:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ns.alma.nu) (195.84.38.252)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2003 09:57:49 -0000
Received: from pc40-128.raa.se ([193.10.40.128])
          by ns.alma.nu (JAMES SMTP Server 2.1) with SMTP ID 387
          for <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>;
          Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:52:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3E9009D7.8070304@alma.nu>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 12:04:55 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per-Olof_Nor=E9n?= <pelle@alma.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OJB Developers List <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: PersistenceBrokerAware lacks broker?
References: <3E8D9028.4080903@alma.nu> <013301c2fab5$0d110900$6479fea9@win>
 <3E8DAECD.5040202@alma.nu> <01f101c2faea$74c84b50$6479fea9@win>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Armin Waibel wrote:

>Hi again,
>
>
>  
>
>>Armin Waibel wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>as luck would have it I'm currently refactoring that
>>>stuff a bit. Want to do a more common listener concept
>>>based on java.util.EventObject as container for events.
>>>
>>>I will integrate your proposal in the new PB event
>>>handling.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Ok, good. No need for me to send in a patch then?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I will do it for you.
>
>  
>
>>>One question, should we change the PersistenceBrokerAware
>>>interface (we in rc2!) or should we declare this interface as
>>>deprecated and add a new one (PersistenceAware) with the
>>>changes suggested by Per-Olof?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Since my schedule doesn�t allow me to wait for release, I�m good for
>>changing the interface :-)
>>Also in favour of this, IMO is the fact that I wouldn�t want a release
>>to include an
>>event interface that is, in pratice, useless for usage with multiple
>>connection-descriptors.
>>I agree, though, it is late in the cycle, It�s probably not so nice of
>>thing to do
>>between a rc2 and release.  But I still lean towards fixing it now.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Sounds like common-sense.
>OK, I will change the interface method argument
>and split the beforeStore/afterStore methods in
>beforeInsert/beforeUpdate .... too
>
>public void beforeUpdate(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>public void afterUpdate(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>public void beforeInsert(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>public void afterInsert(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>public void beforeDelete(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>public void afterDelete(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>
>public void afterLookup(PersistenceBroker broker) throws
>PersistenceBrokerException;
>
>Any comments?
>
This looks good to me...go ahead :-)

Regards,
Per-Olof

>regards,
>Armin
>
>  
>