On 7/29/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/29/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure we can't do that transparently unless we do some > > bytecode magic. > > Well, I didn't want to say 'bytecode' as before you know it Igor > starts calling me a byte code fan :). > > > As for bind(); dirty(); i think just bind() should be > > enough. If it's not perhaps we should make it mark the session dirty, > > as it is imho pretty obvious that something have changed in the > > session so that you want to bind it. > > Yeah, that would be a solution. Igor?
sounds wonderful. however bind() is a pretty bad name for what we want. dirty() makes more sense. so perhaps we should rename dirty() into internaldirty() and have a new dirty() method that internally calls bind(); internaldirty(); -igor Eelco >
