On 12/21/05, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/05, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> > Seems nice, though it does expose a many more methods on what is
> > already a fairly exposed API.
>
> True, but if it's useful to get newObjects, modifiedObjects, and
> deletedObjects, it should be equally useful to get flattenedObjects
> (it's certainly useful to me).
I think I agree. Just figured I'd mention it :)
> I was wondering the same thing myself after I sent the message. I
> think the majority of my auditing code has to run before commitChanges
> (since it creates a bunch of new ChangeLog records). However, it's
> probably possible to update the contents of those records.
>
Ahh. We actually do our auditing in a separate transaction, so that a
failure in audit will not correspond to a failure in the original
transaction. Plus, the failure of a transaction is still a transaction
that is audited for us, so that's another thing that precludes
auditing in the transaction (if the audit write fails, we log it to
manually update the audit tables later).
I could see where you'd need it in the same transaction, though -
particularly in applications where the audit record is as important as
the record itself. I've wanted pre-transaction-commit and
pre-cayenne-commit operations in Cayenne for a while now. A
pre-transaction commit would probably work because the sequences have
already been resolved and its no longer a temp ObjectID. Not sure how
difficult that would be though... haven't had the time to really dig
into it.
Cris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Dec 21 2005 - 18:13:20 EST