OK, it's a misunderstanding then, I thought you wrote somewhere that one
shouldn't rely on the ext symbol names too much, but it seems I was
mistaken.

This is good news because then the external symbol can be used to access an
object, rendering an explicit autoincrementing id redundant in many
situations.


On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>wrote:

> Hi Henrik,
>
> > I've gotten the impression that ext names can not be relied upon to
> always
> > be the same for any given object, but what kind of operations will cause
> > them to change?
>
> Can you describe where you observed such an effect? External symbol
> names are absolutely constant, there is no way to change them, as the
> name _is_ the symbol's address in the DB.
>
> Are you sure you did not accidentally create new objects?
>
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
>

Reply via email to