I'd be all for that. Can we do it before 1.3? IMHO we could. Just rename dirty -> internalDirty, bind->dirty and keep bind as deprecated forward to dirty.
-Matej On 7/29/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > >
