Moving this to dev.
Actually, I wonder if the behavior is consistent even between NEW and
other objects in other states.
I'm thinking a toMany relationship will always return null if the
relationship hasn't been initialized, regardless of whether the DO is
registered or not.
So null really means that the object's toMany relationship hasn't been
initialized, and maybe that's a bad way to handle it since the methods
are "add/remove/get" rather than "set/get"
On 9/8/05, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
> I'd be "-0" on a patch for this.
>
> It'd add overhead because each DataObject would have to iterate over
> the ObjEntity's attributes to determine if the value should be set to
> EMPTY_LIST.
>
> Since I almost never work with DOs outside of a DataContext, I have no
> issues with the DO returning null in those cases, and I consider it
> useful to throw an error if I try to read a toMany relationship from
> an unregistered object.
>
> On the other hand, if people who actually perform a lot of work on
> unregistered objects think this makes sense, I have no compelling
> reasons against it, either. I can understand the claim that the
> behavior isn't consistent between registered and unregistered objects.
>
> On 9/8/05, Gili <cowwo..bs.darktech.org> wrote:
> >
> > That is possible. As far as I can tell, referencing
> > Collections.EMPTY_LIST consumes as much resources as pointing to null.
> > Is there any reason we don't initialize delegates' lists to
> > Collections.EMPTY_LIST? I could contribute a patch if necessary, but
> > does this sound reasonable to everyone?
> >
> > Gili
> >
> > Eric Schneider wrote:
> > > Gili,
> > >
> > > Sounds like the object was never registered, or somehow it's
> > > persistence state is transient. Normally, toMany relationships will
> > > always return an empty List if there are no related objects.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > On Sep 7, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Gili wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm expecting a toMany relationship to return an empty list if
> > >> empty and it seems to return null. Is this by design (I can't seem to
> > >> find it documented anywhere). Does this mean I have to check for both
> > >> null or an empty list everywhere in my code or is there an easier way?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Gili
> > >> --
> > >> http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 13:15:45 EDT