[transfer-dev] Re: Trying not to think in terms of tables
You're headed in the right direction, looking to use the composed relationships. But ... On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM, jqdur...@gmail.com wrote: My first exercise in saving an Address, did so without regard of the CompanyID. Essentially, the handler took the AddressID, located the correct Transfer Object, cloned it, populated, validated and saved the Address without any knowledge of a Company. This seemed to be working fine. ... if you are working with a database record that currently exists and has the Company relationship attached, you don't need to deal with the Company at all. The Address object knows what its parent Company is, and if you don't need to change it, then you don't have to mess with it at all. For a new record, you'd need to use the CompanyID to retrieve the Company object, then do Address.setParentCompany(myCompany), or something like that, before saving the Address record. But if the Address already has a Company, most times you can just ignore it. (Unless of course, you actually need the Company for another reason.) But why did you need to clone the object? Thanks, Tom Tom McNeer MediumCool http://www.mediumcool.com 1735 Johnson Road NE Atlanta, GA 30306 404.589.0560 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Trying not to think in terms of tables
Ah... I hadn't considered that the Address was already aware of its parent. Dealing with the Address object directly was less painful. :) With regard to cloning... isn't that the only way to do it? :o) My validation mechanism occurs once the Transfer Object has been populated. I don't want the (potentially) invalid form data to dirty the cache until it has been validated. If the object doesn't validate, I pass the entire object back to the form to output errors. Jason On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jason Durham ja...@durhamcons.com wrote: Ah... I hadn't considered that the Address was already aware of its parent. Dealing with the Address object directly was less painful. :) With regard to cloning... isn't that the only way to do it? :o) My validation mechanism occurs once the Transfer Object has been populated. I don't want the (potentially) invalid form data to dirty the cache until it has been validated. If the object doesn't validate, I pass the entire object back to the form to output errors. Jason On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Tom McNeer tmcn...@gmail.com wrote: You're headed in the right direction, looking to use the composed relationships. But ... On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM, jqdur...@gmail.com wrote: My first exercise in saving an Address, did so without regard of the CompanyID. Essentially, the handler took the AddressID, located the correct Transfer Object, cloned it, populated, validated and saved the Address without any knowledge of a Company. This seemed to be working fine. ... if you are working with a database record that currently exists and has the Company relationship attached, you don't need to deal with the Company at all. The Address object knows what its parent Company is, and if you don't need to change it, then you don't have to mess with it at all. For a new record, you'd need to use the CompanyID to retrieve the Company object, then do Address.setParentCompany(myCompany), or something like that, before saving the Address record. But if the Address already has a Company, most times you can just ignore it. (Unless of course, you actually need the Company for another reason.) But why did you need to clone the object? Thanks, Tom Tom McNeer MediumCool http://www.mediumcool.com 1735 Johnson Road NE Atlanta, GA 30306 404.589.0560 -- Jason Durham -- Jason Durham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Trying not to think in terms of tables
Ah nuts I have a m2m between Company and Address (with a Join table). Thus, Address isn't directly aware of Company. My Address gets inserted but the join table doesn't get updated. What's the recommended way of handling this? Should my Decorator override the save() method in order to update the Join table... or will Transfer maintain the Join table if access the Address through the Company? TIA Jason On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jason Durham wrote: Ah... I hadn't considered that the Address was already aware of its parent. Dealing with the Address object directly was less painful. :) With regard to cloning... isn't that the only way to do it? :o) My validation mechanism occurs once the Transfer Object has been populated. I don't want the (potentially) invalid form data to dirty the cache until it has been validated. If the object doesn't validate, I pass the entire object back to the form to output errors. Jason On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Tom McNeer tmcn...@gmail.com wrote: You're headed in the right direction, looking to use the composed relationships. But ... On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM, jqdur...@gmail.com wrote: My first exercise in saving an Address, did so without regard of the CompanyID. Essentially, the handler took the AddressID, located the correct Transfer Object, cloned it, populated, validated and saved the Address without any knowledge of a Company. This seemed to be working fine. ... if you are working with a database record that currently exists and has the Company relationship attached, you don't need to deal with the Company at all. The Address object knows what its parent Company is, and if you don't need to change it, then you don't have to mess with it at all. For a new record, you'd need to use the CompanyID to retrieve the Company object, then do Address.setParentCompany(myCompany), or something like that, before saving the Address record. But if the Address already has a Company, most times you can just ignore it. (Unless of course, you actually need the Company for another reason.) But why did you need to clone the object? Thanks, Tom Tom McNeer MediumCool http://www.mediumcool.com 1735 Johnson Road NE Atlanta, GA 30306 404.589.0560 -- Jason Durham -- Jason Durham -- Jason Durham -- Jason Durham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Trying not to think in terms of tables
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Jason Durham jqdur...@gmail.com wrote: My validation mechanism occurs once the Transfer Object has been populated. I don't want the (potentially) invalid form data to dirty the cache until it has been validated. Perfectly reasonable. I just didn't follow your logic before. Ah nuts I have a m2m between Company and Address (with a Join table). Thus, Address isn't directly aware of Company. My Address gets inserted but the join table doesn't get updated. What's the recommended way of handling this? Should my Decorator override the save() method in order to update the Join table... or will Transfer maintain the Join table if access the Address through the Company? Depends on your configuration, but probably, yes, if the many-to-many is set on the Company. I think if you go through the docs on Managing Relationships, you'll see how to set this up. -- Thanks, Tom Tom McNeer MediumCool http://www.mediumcool.com 1735 Johnson Road NE Atlanta, GA 30306 404.589.0560 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Trying not to think in terms of tables
What does your company.save() do? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Jason Durham jqdur...@gmail.com wrote: These are the sequence of events in my handler... *Form is submitted* Create new Address object Populate Address object Validate Address object Retrieve Company object Verify Address exists in Company and copy the new Address over existing [ oTempAddress.copyValuesTo(oCompany.getAddress(addressIndex) ] Save Company If I dump oCompany.getAddress(addressIndex).getMemento() just before the save of the company, I see the new data from the form. However, oCompany.save() doesn't seem to save the Address I just modified. I'm gonna RTFM again just in case I missed something. :) Jason -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
