I thought the data squeezer just put the object's PK in the hidden area
of the form?
/dev/mrg
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Zeigler [mailto:robert..uregumption.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:43 PM
To: cayenne-use..bjectstyle.org
Subject: Re: Note to Cayenne/Tapestry users ...
That's where the data squeezer comes in handy; it will let For work its
magic (useful for avoiding stale link exceptions, etc.) and still make
sure you
have objects which are nicely attached to the data context. :)
I've been using base:For (For, but for tapestry 3.03) for some time now
in conjunction
with data squeezers and have no issues.
Robert
Michael Gentry (Yes, I'm a Contractor) wrote:
>I've been converting an application which uses Tapestry 3/Cayenne to
>Tapestry 4 (and Cayenne, of course). In the process, I've been trying
to
>get rid of all of the deprecated components (ActionLink, Conditional,
>Foreach, etc).
>
>I replaced one of the Foreach components with the new For component and
it
>caused issues for me. I had a persistent List of Cayenne objects and
>Tapestry, with the new For component, would serialize/deserialize them
>(apparently in the HTML), which creates a HOLLOW Cayenne object
>disassociated from it's DataContext. (It also produced some bizarre
HTML in
>the hidden INPUT section -- kept repeating a For_0 variable, but with
>different values.) This, of course, caused the code to fail.
>
>After looking through the docs, we added the volatile="true" attribute
and
>it made For work more like the old Foreach and everything was fine
again.
>
>Just thought I'd share in case other Cayenne/Tapestry users are going
>through a similar conversion.
>
>/dev/mrg
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jan 04 2006 - 16:44:49 EST