I think it does. If it suddenly changes behind the scenes, it can be
confusing. So I am not 100% opposed to it, but I feel like having it
in a default cgen template is probably put some burden on us to make
it work.
Andrus
On Sep 26, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Isn't it good from the user's point of view for the new DO she
> created to be where she put it? To me this is a good thing
> regardless of what happens when the user or another user does a re-
> query. Having the extra int argument isn't necessarily making all
> kinds of relational database ordering promises.
>
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2008, at 2:41 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be a good idea for the generated methods to have the
>>> extra int argument?
>>
>> It is a bit more involved than that. The problem with including
>> this in Cayenne is that it won't work in a more general case. E.g.
>> if you add an object at a particular index, and the master object
>> is later invalidated and refetched, the order will be lost. Or if
>> it is refetched by another user. So Scott's answer was essentially
>> correct.
>>
>> We tried to solve it from another angle, by defining a certain
>> column as the "ordering" column to instruct Cayenne to order
>> fetched relationship lists. It is still on the table, but it is
>> also hairy...
>>
>> For now I can't think of a clean generic solution that would map to
>> a DB. The ordering column is the closest I can think of.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Seaweed Software Pty Ltd,
> http://www.strandz.org
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Sep 26 2008 - 11:35:22 EDT