Dumb problem, but weâve get some confusion here. Letâs say we have a Master object that has a Details object collection. Details collection is a 10ths thousand objects set. Repository settings for Master object are autoupdate true, autoretrieve true,autodelete true. API is PB.
Our user need to query for one specific Master object (no problem with this using Query object), change some attributes, then browse (paging) through the thousand Detail objects, until he founds the one he is looking for, to update some attributes in it - remember the Detail object- (letâs say an iterator will do this fine) . We do not have any problems on the UI side. The client app returns the data modified by the user (the Master object data and the Detail object data). Back in the server, doubts start again. Question here is, which is the right way to persist the changes to the DB? Pseudo code seems to be: 1. Retrieve Master Object. 2. Update some attributes 3. Retrieve Detail object from the Master Object collection * 4. Update some Detail attributes 5. store de Master Object. We find easy to retrieve the Master Object, but we do not see the proper way to retrieve and update the Detail object in the collection autoretrieved by the Master object. * How should we look for the Detail object? And then, how should we update an individual in a big autoretrieved collection? The mechanism available to retrieve certain object within PBAPI is the Query Object, but we do no see any OJB based methods to find an object in a autoretrieved collection. This means we should query the Detail object outside the collection (I mean find the single Detail object in the DB using a Query object ) In this case, once we get the reference to this object and we persist it back (the Detail object), the in-memory collection retrieved by the Master object will be updated? What if the association between Master an Detail, from a business perspective is a compound association? The Detail may exist or not, but when yes, it does so allways "compunding" a Master object, which means we should add him to the collection letting OJB handle the persistence directly? Some code snippet might enlighten us Thanks in advance, Gustavo.
