On 20/10/2007, at 11:40 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
On 10/20/07 4:36 AM, "Andrus Adamchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:58 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
By hiding this in a setter, it may be possible to unregister
the old
object first, thereby limiting the growth.
Not a good idea. Consider this:
1: BType blocal = (BType) a.getObjectContext().localObject
(b.getObjectId(), b);
2: a.setSomething(blocal );
3: a.setSomething( (BType) a.getObjectContext().localObject
(b1.getObjectId(), b1));
4. blocal.doSomething();
I guess I don't see that being distinctly different from the following
non-Cayennish code:
1) BType b = a.getSomeB();
2) a.setSomeB(b1);
3) BType b1 = a.getSomeB();
4) b.doSomething();
If this is something you'd prefer to do, Kevin, then I'd suggest
adjusting your velocity templates to achieve what you'd like for the
varying setter methods and so on. This is the usual place to do any
such abstractions.
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
