db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.fhg.de>
Subject Re: PersistentField implementations, dramatic performance differences
Date Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:12:06 GMT
Armin Waibel wrote:

> I added a test case for PersistenceFields (PersistenceFieldTest), it 
> seems that PersistenceFieldAutoProxyImpl isn't work properly. The test 
> does not pass.
> The test use non-nested, nested fields and fields specific to 
> Introspector (metadata name is compilant with javabeans, but class field 
> name differs).

There are two problems here, and neither is in the auto proxy impl:

1. The test case does not set the tested persistent field impl as the 
default persistent field impl (for PersistentFieldFactory), so the 
creation of PersistentField instances for the nested field always uses 
the direct access impl.

2. You added a new abstract PersistentField base imlementation which is 
unrelated to the existing one (AbstractPersistentField), and which is 
set as the base class of the introspector impl. This lets the test fail 
because the auto proxy impl requires AbstractPersistentField impls (for 
doGet/doSet) leasing to a class cast exception in the 
PersistenceFieldAutoProxyImpl#getFieldImpl method that determines the 
actual persistent field impl to use.

I fixed the first issue in the test case, but since I don't know why you 
added the new base type, I didn't touch the second one. Can you have a 
look ?

Tom


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message