Re: DataContext.invalidateObjects vs unregisterObjects

From: Gili (cowwo..bs.darktech.org)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 11:06:55 EDT

  • Next message: Gili: "Re: Sharing a single DataMap between multiple DataNodes"

            Yes, but if the DataContext consists of a mix of read-only and modified
    objects then this is not an object. Ideally I should be able to discard
    the read-only objects while keeping the modified ones around. I really
    wish we could do something like a SoftReference but for the read-only
    cache; I just can't think up of how to do this. It would be great to
    next have to flush the cache or run out of memory unless you actually
    *wrote* a lot of changes.

    Gili

    Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    > Normally, if you're trying to deal with large data sets, the
    > recommended solution is to dispose of your datacontext after every so
    > many operations and start over.
    >
    > On 9/6/05, Gili <cowwo..bs.darktech.org> wrote:
    >
    >> invalidateObjects() seems to be used for faulting objects so that they
    >>are refreshed from the DB next time they are hit. unregisterObjects()
    >>seems to be used for preventing read-only objects from triggering an
    >>OutOfMemoryErrors. Am I correct?
    >>
    >>Gili
    >>--
    >>http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
    >>
    >
    >

    -- 
    http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 11:06:55 EDT