Użytkownik Paul McNett napisał: > 2) > Setting ScanRequeryChildren doesn't actually requery any children that I can > see[1], > all it does is set the current parent, which should be a pretty fast > operation, and > definitely desirable (can't think of why you would want to purposefully not > set the > current parent). > > I think that at one time, children were being requeried needlessly resulting > in bad > performance, and that the operation of setting the current parent would > result in an > implicit requery(), but I don't think that's happening anymore. > > Should we: > 1) remove ScanRequeryChildren completely > -or- > 2) Keep it, default to False like we claim, and add it as a separate > concept from > setCurrentParent()? > > > [1] The only case where a child would be requeried is if there wasn't already > a > cursor for that child, and child.RequeryOnLoad is True. >
Hi. I'm using my patch from ticket #1351 with the following rules: 1) default value of ScanRequeryChildren is True 2) to avoid retrieving unneeded data, I turn it of in isAnyChanged() mehod 3) I have set updateChildren to false for all row pointer restoring code. This works for me. BTW, I think you shouldn't use RowNumber = val internally for row pointer restoration, but in some places you do it, like in restorePosition(), but in other you don't - see getFieldVal() method. -- Regards Jacek Kałucki _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected]
