Re: forcing object update

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Wed Sep 28 2005 - 13:11:32 EDT

  • Next message: Cris Daniluk: "Re: forcing object update"

    [taking to devel]

    On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Cris Daniluk wrote:

    > I do think this is worth finding an ideal solution to, though... the
    > power of the framework and orm working together to manage a
    > many-to-many relationship with 2-3 lines of code is pretty awesome and
    > compelling.
    >
    > Maybe we can look at a formalized method of doing this - where an
    > object can register itself in a state (either the persistence state,
    > or a new additional state) that says some persistent property needs to
    > be computed based on its transient properties. If the object is found
    > in this state when commitChanges() is invoked,
    > applyTransientProperties() or something is called. Then, when the
    > snapshots are compared, differences would be found.

    So what you are suggesting is another lifecycle method. I wonder if
    DataObjectTransactionEventListener would work in this situation?

    I had issues with DataObject events design in the past, I guess
    mainly because a lifecycle interface was named a listener... But the
    functionality is there and will be preserved in some form even if we
    refactor the event.

    Andrus



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 13:11:34 EDT