Hibernate version: 3.0

I am running into a caching problem across different applications that share classes. The most basic solution is to turn caching off or get a cluster aware caching tool. There might be an easier solution for now though that would allow me to continue caching.

The two apps both need write-access to different fields on the class, so I am thinking that by setting dynamic-update = true each of the two apps they will only update the fields that that they each edited. That only works if the way dynmaic-update works is by tracking changes to the object in memory, NOT by doing a compare against the DB.

Is that correct? If a table managed by dynamic-update changes behind-the-scenes, will hibernate update those columns becuase they are different from the database state or will it not update those columns because the object has not changed those fields?

It compares with the classes previous in memory value.

Thank you david for your response.

That was my understanding from everything that I had read about hibernate, but a simple test case showed that it actually checked the DB first. If I edit the DB table directly and then save the object through Hibernate it overwrites the DB change even if I havent changed that field in memory.

Is there another setting somewhere?

It is correctly doing only some fields in the update. I'll post my test case here in the morning.

Thanks.

I have solved my issue in a much better way, but for the record, it seems like it does not base its check on memory values but rather on DB values. I couldnt put together a scriptable test case, but here is what i did:

1. load object into memory
2. change field A in DB
3. change field B in memory
4. save object
5. field A is not back to the original value loaded from memory.

True story.

excuse me -- it *is* back to the original value from memory.