Re: Non-physical delete... again

From: Andrey Razumovsky (razumovsky.andre..mail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 03 2009 - 09:12:43 EDT

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: Non-physical delete... again"

    >
    >

    >
    > Let's first decide which approach above we'll be using (1. intercept on
    > commit or 2. intercept of anything "delete").
    >

    I see. What implemented now is "1.5 - intercept of anything
    DeleteBatchQuery". This might be okay if we plan #2 someday. Actually I want
    this feature right now, and changing EJBQL nature might be tricky. So I
    suggest we either end with #1 or commit current code, which is little part
    of #2.

    >
    > Looking at this one more time, I agree. This is irrelevant for approach #1,
    > but for #2 I think we can achieve what we need with a DataNode bound
    > SQLActionVisitor, which allows to process all types of queries in a generic
    > fashion (see below my notes on EJBQL).
    >

    The most common SQLActionVisitor is JdbcActionBuilder and it cannot contain
    reference to DataNode by design, as said before. I should say that uploaded
    "DN bounded OperationObserver" allows to pass DN to ALL queries.
    "Processing" e.g. ebjql and batch in generic fashion currently seems
    imposible to me :(. They can logically do the same, but implementation is
    too different.

    As I already said, both long-plan ways are OK for me, but I wish to be able
    to intercept context commit action as fast as possible.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 09:13:20 EDT