Hi Borut,
(2) is essentially the same as (3), only this is a case of
"unsupported remoting", in that it works in theory, but hasn't been
tested much to iron out any possible wrinkles.
Andrus
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Borut Bolčina wrote:
> Hello,
>
> me again troubling you...
>
> I just read the
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAYDOC/Remote+Object
> +Persistence+Guidein
> search of the solution. If someone read my posting about "Database
> replication and caching" this is the continuation of the architectural
> question.
>
> Two or more web applications will collect data from users and
> obviously
> should be persisted in database. Those web apps will communicate with
> backend java applications (cluster) via RMI calls for some other
> reasons.
> Collected web data represent two Cayenne data objects (one is in
> the to-one
> relationship with the other). If we don't want the web apps to have
> direct
> access to database, this two objects should be passed to backend
> Cayenne
> enabled java application to persist them. As I read the thread
> http://www.objectstyle.org/cayenne/lists/cayenne-user/
> 2005/09/0205.html I am
> not sure what would be the best approach to take for my case
> (entity1----toOne--->entity2). Should I
>
> - make two value objects (those would be to plain serializable
> beans?)
> and pass them via RMI call to backend java application to connect
> them and
> persist them, or
> - create DataContext, insert those to CayenneDataObjects into it,
> serialize DataContext and send it over the RMI to backend java
> application
> just to commitChanges on received deserialized DataContext, or
> - set up Hessian web service on backend machines to receive requests
> from frontend (web applications) to persist data, or
> - not bother with Cayenne at all on the frontend (web apps) and send
> array of user entered values to backend java application to
> construct
> Cayenne data objects out of the data and then persist them.
>
> Option two seems most appealing to me, but the last one I think is
> the least
> work, although not as elegant. What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Borut
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Aug 10 2006 - 09:45:56 EDT