> So just changing the order of operations was the trick? Perhaps it
> should just be documented that you remove from relationships before
> you delete from the context?
I'd say Cayenne should handle that. When I encounter quirks like that
in other frameworks, I tend to jump to quick conclusions about the
quality of a given framework. So this is one of those small things we
should fix to ensure that the user impression of Cayenne is always
"it just works" :-)
Andrus
On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> So just changing the order of operations was the trick? Perhaps it
> should just be documented that you remove from relationships before
> you delete from the context?
>
> I think the main reason I did it in the order I did was because, in my
> test, right after that I had:
>
> childContext.deleteObject((Detail) childM.getDetails().get(0));
> childM.removeFromDetails((Detail) childM.getDetails().get(0));
>
> If I had reversed the order, I'd have needed a variable to store
> childM.getDetails().get(0). How is that for lazy? :-)
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 10/5/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>> I committed a fix. Per my Jira comment there is a "correct" way to go
>> about it that requires a bit of object lifecycle redesign, but my
>> fairly straightforward workaround should work for this particular
>> case.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if it matters, but in the test program I only pulled
>>> the
>>> Master object into the child DC. Is it important to pull the Detail
>>> objects into the child DC as well? For some reason, I was under the
>>> impression they would get pulled into the child DC automatically,
>>> but
>>> perhaps I am mistaken?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> /dev/mrg
>>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 05 2007 - 09:31:09 EDT