Very cool! I am glad this worked.
Also, it seems like as a part of the latest commit,
ObjRelationship.setToMany is gone, like we discussed earlier. This
actually results in compilation errors in regression tests
(RandomDomainBuilder). I can fix this myself, just wanted to check with
you to avoid future CVS conflicts.
Andrus
On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 10:55 PM, Craig Miskell wrote:
>>> joins is not very exciting either. Oh well ... If the option above
>>> doesn't work I'd investigate using regular select query with
>>> prefetches
>>> specified, and a specialized Observer, this way we may solve two
>>> problems at once. Lets discuss this in case if this becomes our last
>>> option.
>> Oooo, just had another look...refetchObject creates the query and then
>> calls performQuery(query) which uses standard observers. We could
>> instead
>> create a custom observer (kind of as suggested above, perhaps even an
>> inner class) which knows how to handle this sort of fetch properly,
>> and
>> use the other performQuery methods which take an observer.
>>
>> Will let y'all know how it goes,
> Woo hoo! It works. OK, maybe it's not that amazing, but I was banging
> my head on and off for so long, it's a good feeling to have done.
> Custom
> observer does the appropriate magic (finds the old object,
> updates it, swizzles object id's around).
>
> Will wait the required 10-15 minutes for the cvs update to happen (56K
> modems suck) then commit :-)
>
> Craig
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 00:09:02 EST