Markus,
I think you might want to send the persistence team a little more coding
for them to figure out what you are really talking about and for the benefit
of learners like me. code you also send the stack trace of deployment?
eve
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:38:14 +0200> From: markus.karg@gmx.net> To: persistence@glassfish.dev.java.net> Subject: Benefit of @NamedQuery> > Dear Persistence Team,> > thank you for providing TopLink Essentials. It is a great product that > improved our productivity by far. :-)> > Today I am curious about @NamedQuery implementation in TopLink Essentials.> > According to the EJB 3.0 Persistence Spec, using @NamedQuery is > beneficial since (a) the QL syntax can be checked at compile time and > (b) the QL statement can be compiled and prepared at bean instantiation > what should result in higher performance.> > Well, in theory this sounds great, by my question is: Is that really > true for TopLink Essentials?> > I have done a small benchmark and actually the result was annoying. The > veryfier did not notice that I had a typo in my @NamedQuery syntax so > (a) is not working properly (maybe a bug?) and I did not find any > performance benefits compared to a non-named query created on the fly > from a Java string at runtime, so (b) is not really measurable.> > So what is the official statement of the persistence team on this topic? > Was my benchmark done in an unfair way, or is something planned to get > improved here in the future? What kind of prophilactic optimization is > TopLink doing on @NamedQuery and why is the verifier not telling about > my typo?> > Thanks a lot! :-)> Markus> > -- > http://www.xing.com/go/invita/58469>
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile. Text MSN to 63463 now!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx