IIRC there were some locking jiras, but they will be treated as bugs,
not as limitation by design.
Andrus
On Jan 13, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> 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 - 07:38:16 EST