Thanks for the update.
FYI: One of the reasons I wanted to play with it was to investigate
the scenario where I make some changes to (some) data on the client,
call a method on the server that will commit the changes AND perform
some business logic that grabs more data, makes some associated
changes, and commits those changes. Some of these associated objects
MAY already be held at the client, and so any updates from the
business method would need to be propogated back to client.
For example, say I am looking at a loan statement for a client when I
realise that the loan interest rate is incorrect. I update the loan
interest rate and call the adjustLoanRate method in my business
process class on the server. The server method saves the change, and
in the same transaction adjusts any pending automatic loan payments
(may be already viewed on client) and creates an overall loan
adjustment (possibly only if will benefit the customer, based on fact
its the company's fault). There could be a further ripple effect that
the server based method makes further system requests for a client
review by supervisory staff, automatic analysis of further potential
cases etc.
Assuming that the client holds a subset of data available in the data
context on the server side, one possible way of handling this (and I'm
SURE there must be better ways :-) is to pass all changed objects in
full and only ids of unchanged objects (performance - but would it be
a worry - or is it even necessary - can we glean this from the server
side contents?) when making this server call. If the server updates
any of the unchanged objects, these objects get returned from the
method call. Similarly, the committed updates from the client also get
returned to it. Note: this also allows the server to adjust objects as
part of the commit process (e.g. I currently do audit trail and time
stamp stuff this way), and the client to keep in sync with these
changes.
Is this type of scenario going to be possible, or will I have to push
all my logic to the client, and use the server for managing data
connections and non-transactionally important type commands/messages?
Thanks
Derek
On 6/9/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> After I moved past prototyping, real implementation is taking more time
> than expected. So currently 3T does't work at all. I won't attempt another
> guesstimate of when this will be in a working shape again as it'll
> probably be wrong. But I am on it...
>
> Design part is mostly finished. It combines both distributed and nested
> contexts support that allowed me to simplify server-side part of the stack
> (PersistenceContext/ObjectContext pair of interfaces). Merging current
> DataContext/DataObject/DataDomain with
> Persistent/ObjectContext/PersistenceContext is progressing pretty well.
>
> Now the things that are not there yet... Many of the new methods in the
> stack are just placeholders and need to be impleented. Also the
> server-side part of the ObjectContext is a DataContext subclass, so once I
> start full integration testing, I expect issues with reusing current
> DataContext stack that expects DataObjects to be passed around.
>
> I'll post further updates on this list.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
> > There seems to have been a lot of changes lately :-) and I was
> > wondering if there was an updated version of the simple example 3T app
> > that I could base my Eclipse RCP prototype/example on. If it exists -
> > great (please point me at it - should get me going quicker), if not -
> > well, I'll just try wading through the test classes to get a feel for
> > what I need to do ...
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the yes or no response :-)
> >
> > Derek
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 08 2005 - 19:19:26 EDT