Hello,

I noticed that the method isCacheInvalidationRequired() in AbstractEntityPersister only checks for versioning as a way of "forcing" potentially dangerous cache updates.

I have simple immutable POJOs. Therefore no versioning (as that would defeat the purpose of having a read-only cache since version updates are indeed UPDATES), no dynamic updates, no formula properties; just run of the mill POJOs however some being spanned across several tables (using a subclass per hierarchy mapping).

If the objects being stored are in need immutable (mutable="false") why won't the persister allow the second-level cache update (which in my case is Ehcache)?

I really don't feel like adding my own persister for every entity which is subject to this behavior. Does this code change sound completely crazy or potentially dangerous?



Thanks for any help.

I'm sorry the correct fix would be:


That way upon transaction completion, if sucessful and this method is invoked, it doesn't matter how many tables the entity spans since the entity is immutable