thanks. this clarifies this for me. it would be great to not have to update both sides when a property is read only. i always thought read only properties could act more like custom fill queries with the mappedBy property as a fill parameter, but possibly that would not be best practice. - kevin
--- In [email protected], "Jeff Vroom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, when you have a bi-directional association like this, you need to > update both sides of the association. In other words, you do still have > to update the read-only phones property in this case. The read-only > attribute is kind of misleading... you do still have to update those > properties, it is just that the assembler does not use those properties > for persisting in the database. If you don't update them, the cached > copies won't be updated. > > > > Jeff > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Kevin > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [flexcoders] LCDS proper way to commit read-only properties > > > > I am trying to figure out the right way to do this. I have a > ContactVO which has a phones collection that is mapped as a read-only > association. In Hibernate we are using the mappedBy annotation and in > the database we have a contact_id columns which joins the ContactVO to > the PhoneVO table. > > My actionscript ContactVO has a "contact.phones" collection which we > bind to a datagrid. It seems that if I do this when I create a new > PhoneVO: > > ds = new DataService("phones"); > ds.createItem(myNewPhoneVO); > > ..the PhoneVO is persisted in the database BUT the "phones" collection > in my ContactVO is not updated. However, if I refresh the application > OR refill my contacts collection then the new PhoneVO shows up as > expected. It seems as if one uses "createItem" on a read only > property then the associated collection does not get the pushed data. > Is this the expected behavior? > > If so, it seems like I would have to always add the item to my > collection in order to persist it correctly. Is that the "right" way > to commit these read-only collections? > > Thanks, Kevin >
