|
Everyone – This message is to let you know of the following changes
that *will* break your code.
These changes will be published some time today or tomorrow. (As soon as
I get them working with two of my projects and the samples.) The changes
are: For a month or so now I’ve had record objects cache
the in instance variables the results of calling getXyzRecord() or
getXyzIterator() or getXyzLookup(). This has caused me no end of
headaches that I’ve been trying to ignore but which have ticked me off enough
to finally make me do something about it. Here’s an example of the issue: I have a
UserRecord that hasOne AddressRecord that hasOne CountryRecord. When the
User logs in their corresponding UserRecord is stored in their session.
The user goes to edit their profile to change their address. They view
their profile and see all the correct information. They edit their
country and change it from the The problem is this: The UserRecord caches the
AddressRecord into the variables scope (which is persistent because the user is
in the session) when you call getAddressRecord. When you call
getCountryRecord() on the AddressRecord the CountryRecord is cached too.
So, let’s say you update the AddressRecord and set the CountryId from 1
to 2. Wouldn’t you expect the results of calling getCountryRecord()
to reflect the correct record? I would! But it doesn’t
because the CountryRecord is cached and is not refreshed automatically when you
set the countryId. I know I could have chosen to have reactor generate code
that would invalidate the cached CountryRecord when the countryId was changed
in the AddressRecord. However, this didn’t smell right to me.
It seemed to be adding complexity to the Record that’s not needed.
Furthermore, there were even more issues when working with Iterators.
(You can only set the sort by one time! If it’s cached you’re
hosed!) So to be consistent, at least for now, I’ve removed the
caching and the related headaches. The other thing I’ve done: I’ve dropped
the Record off the getXyzRecord method. It now will be getXyz. I
know there is a lot of controversy over this. I’ve given this a lot
of thought and I sincerely feel that this is the best approach. My logic
is that you don’t ask the reactorFactory for an XyzRecord, you ask it for
an Xyz. IE: reactorFactor.createRecord(“xyz”), not
“xyzRecord”. I’ve toyed with this in my code and it
seems to feel better and smell better. This raises the question of what will happen to the
iterator’s naming convention. For now nothing. But,
it’s something I’m going to have a hard eye on. FYI – the blog and contactmanager samples have been
updated. The docs HAVE NOT. Doug |
- [Reactor For CF] Imporant changes commng to reactor this we... Doug Hughes
