db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Armin Waibel <arm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problem: Copy field values
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:44:21 GMT
Brian McCallister wrote:
> 
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Armin Waibel wrote:
> 
>> The basic problem is how can we make an image or a copy of a 
>> persistent object, how to copy the object fields?
>>
>> On OJB java-field-type level a field (of a persistent class) could be 
>> all kind of class, because the user can declare a field-conversion in 
>> the field-descriptor, thus we don't know the field type in the 
>> persistent object.
>> So it's not possible to image/copy field values on this level, because 
>> the fields don't have to implement Serializeable or Cloneable.
> 
> 
> Backwards incompatible option: provide a copy function on field 
> conversions. Provide an AbstractFieldConversion which keeps a flat 
> fieldwise copy of the custom object, but can be replaced by a more 
> intelligent version. I like this option less than the next...
>

I have in mind the same (could be an option for 1.1), additionally we 
should add a equals(obj1, obj2) method in FieldConversion to compare two 
fields on java-field level, in AbstractFieldConversion we can do the 
field-conversion and use equals(...) of the assigned FieldType.


> 
>> If we convert the fields to the sql-field-type using the javaToSql 
>> field-conversion we know the type of the field (performance issue when 
>> using complex field-conversions?), because this is declared in the 
>> field-descriptor and we are using the jdbc type / java type mapping of 
>> the JDBC specification:
>> VARCHAR --> String
>> VARBINARY --> byte[]
>> DATE --> Date
> 
> 
> Caching the jdbc type makes the most sense to me, and going ahead and 
> doing the conversion. I don't think the second level cache should be 
> keeping entity instances around, just the sql values. Running them 
> through the conversion process is still much cheaper than hitting the db.
> 

Great note Brian! Agree, this makes sense and it expose a bug in current 
TLCacheImpl. Currently the second level cache cache "flat" objects, but 
indeed it will be better to use a HashMap and cache the sql type values 
by field-name.
This will prevent data corruption if someone use different metadata 
mappings (using the "per thread mode" in MetadataManager) for the same 
class with different field-conversion.

Armin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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