On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:43 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> Would localObject(Persistent) then be better as an interface than
> localObject(ObjectId,Object)? The latter is already possible via
> DataObjectUtils.objectForPK(ObjectContext,ObjectId). But the former
> seems more generally useful.
Well - 'objectForPK' is a different operation from localObject(..)
due to the prototype argument to the later.
As a side note, I'd love to rework 'localObject' all together to make
it less confusing. Maybe something along the lines of JPA "merge" and
"persist" methods? Anyways this requires more thought.
>>> + public Persistent localObject(ObjectId id, Object prototype) {
>>> +
>>> + if (id == null) {
>>> + throw new IllegalArgumentException("Null ObjectId");
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> +1, but note that there are some slight differences between
>> DataContext and CayenneContext implementation. Don't recall all
>> the details, but it would be nice to diff them and see what we can
>> do about them.
>
> There was no difference actually. The only diff was a comment in
> CayenneContext saying that this was a direct copy from DataContext
> and a comment in DataContext instructing people to remember to copy
> the implementation to CayenneContext and a TODO saying we need to
> find inheritance somehow... so it seemed the natural thing to do
> the todo.
Just curious - have you tried the actual diff of those two
implementations? That comment may be there, but I have a vague
recollection that one of the implementations nevertheless has been
altered.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 28 2007 - 05:43:01 EDT