Re: localObjects() and MODIFIED objects, cloning DataObjects

From: Mike Kienenberger (mkienen..laska.net)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 12:46:49 EST

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: localObjects() and MODIFIED objects, cloning DataObjects"

    > On Jan 19, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    > > Is there a reason why a MODIFIED object couldn't be copied into a new
    > > context?
    > > I've never had the need to do it, but I don't see why it would be
    > > disallowed.

    Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > I agree - current behavior (throwing an exception) is probably not the
    > best solution... I am in favor of changing that... The question is - do
    > we want to copy a changed object, or a committed version of it? To be
    > on a safe side, I'd say committed (but maybe there are valid cases for
    > copying the changes as well?)

    I would say that the modified values should be copied.
    That would be the behavior end-users expect. It was the behavior that Andre
    expected.

    -Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 12:46:42 EST