2009/11/24 Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > > My question is - why >>> can't we have "silent" addTargetDirectly and removeTargetDirectly for >>> to-many properties? This will allow as to manage event cycles. >>> >> > > I guess we can. This should replace "addReverse" parameter in the > appropriate method. Talking from memory here, I may not remember all the > stumbling blocks there (or even the full cycle of property setting). So if > you can make it work, excellent. > > Also to make sure we are talking about the same thing... The question is > who will be the owner of these methods - Object itself (as in DO), a to-many > collection, or to-many property descriptor? I am thinking "property > descriptor" (and possibly an underlying collection). > > to-many collection and to-many property descriptor I guess.
> > For POJOs and DO's it can work same as non-silent one, and for ROPs it >> will >> differ >> > > "directly" means it won't trip a DB operation. So ideally it should work > the same for all.. > > "Directly" means it puts value directly to underlying collection (if any). I'll see if there is solution for all. > > So ... another attempt at abstract analysis (or an attempt at unwinding my > memory...) IIRC the main difference between DO and PO is fault handling - we > can store a Fault instance in a map, but not in a typed ivar. So PO's have > no concepts of faults at all, and the lifecycle is different. DO approach is > more lazy (it won't try to create even a placeholder collection until the > property is accessed), and I prefer it to PO's. Wonder if when we reconcile > that somehow, the rest will fall into place on its own?? > > (E.g. for PO's, we generate extra boolean "fault" properties for each > relationship, that are checked on every property access?) > Nice idea, need to think about it. But anyways, this is separate task
