On 13/01/2009, at 11:09 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is a bug, and relating objects should be allowed
>>>> between parent/child contexts.
>>>
>>> Not so. Parent/child relationship determines the path of the
>>> select and commit operations, but has no effect on the rule that
>>> each object belongs to just one context, and no relationships
>>> between them are possible.
>>
>> That's a little awkward then. If a user is in the middle of
>> creating a new Artist and decides to create a Painting (in a child
>> context), then it is troublesome to create the join. We can't move
>> the Artist into the child context so that it can be joined there to
>> the Painting, so I assume the only solution is to postpone the join
>> until the child context is committed back to its parent. But that
>> is awkward since while in the child editing context, the Painting
>> has no access to the Artist it should be related to.
>
> This is approached differently. You would clone an Artist from the
> parent to the child context via 'localObject' (even though the
> parent object may still be NEW), and then set the relationship
> between the two local objects.
Ah, so cloning a new object between contexts in this way is OK. That
would do nicely, although I thought for some reason we couldn't do
that for fear of some sort of locking problem. I'll give it a go.
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jan 13 2009 - 07:30:44 EST