So just changing the order of operations was the trick? Perhaps it
should just be documented that you remove from relationships before
you delete from the context?
I think the main reason I did it in the order I did was because, in my
test, right after that I had:
childContext.deleteObject((Detail) childM.getDetails().get(0));
childM.removeFromDetails((Detail) childM.getDetails().get(0));
If I had reversed the order, I'd have needed a variable to store
childM.getDetails().get(0). How is that for lazy? :-)
/dev/mrg
On 10/5/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I committed a fix. Per my Jira comment there is a "correct" way to go
> about it that requires a bit of object lifecycle redesign, but my
> fairly straightforward workaround should work for this particular case.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if it matters, but in the test program I only pulled the
> > Master object into the child DC. Is it important to pull the Detail
> > objects into the child DC as well? For some reason, I was under the
> > impression they would get pulled into the child DC automatically, but
> > perhaps I am mistaken?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /dev/mrg
> >
>
>
