Re: Non-physical delete... again

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Wed Jun 03 2009 - 09:19:38 EDT

  • Next message: Zissis Trabaris: "Modeling indexes"

    On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.

    I suggest going with #1 then.

    >> 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 meant this in a general sense. Your strategy class can have an
    anonymous inner class implementing SQLActionVisitor or something like
    that. Anyways, this is not applicable for #1 ... I think.

    Andrus



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 09:20:12 EDT