Re: Mapping SQL Result Sets to Browsers -- WEB400

Subject: Re: Mapping SQL Result Sets to Browsers
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/web400>
List-help: <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:web400@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

From: Joe Pluta
Some purists would argue that putting "ensureLoaded" on every get
is unnecessary overhead but I really don't plan to go down that route.

In the context of our "cache synchronization" discussion, does ensureLoaded() check to see if an object is in cache, or if the cached object is still in sync with the database?

I was trying to get my head around the notion of using DAO tooling like Spring for dumping SQL result sets to intermediate Collections, which in turn contain Maps of Name-Value pairs. Then the issue of synchronizing cache and database came up. If cached objects become stale, I gather that they must be instantiated from scratch. And if you have a lot of I/O activity, then that puts extra load on the garbage collector...

Nathan.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Mapping SQL Result Sets to Browsers , Walden H. Leverich

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.