Thomas Fischer wrote:
Some time after that I want to access the data I have stored, e.g.
because the user has submitted a command in an HTML form to change the
data. The only "official" (i.e. automatically generated) way to get the
cached Books from an author is to use author.getBooks(). But I care
about the data being consistent, so in no circumstances do I want to
access the database, because this would break transaction safety and
lead to inconsistent data if soneone elase has changed the data in the
menatime. Especially, if, by some mistake, I did forget to read the
books of an author, I want to know it. A logical way of knowing is that
author.getBooks() returns null.
If you are /sure/ that you're using the very same instance of your
author to modify something, there is every reason to believe that your
books fetched before are still there. I see your point for debugging
purposes. But that should not happen in production code.
I am personally using xslt, but that does not play any role. The problem
is that I have no idea to provide the methods when managers are turned
on. The implementation without the connection asks the manager to
provide the object, and there is no way I have found to tell the manager
"get that object, but if it is not there, use the provided connection".
So I did not implement it in objectWithManager.vm. Do you have any idea
of how to solve this one ?
Not without bigger changes in the AbstractBaseManager. I will have a
look at this. I guess the real fun starts if I want to cache the whole
collection of books at once (using MethodResultCache for example, not to
speak of invalidation).
If you transfer it to java, yes. I would explicitly use book.getAuthor()
in the presentation layer.
I see your point. With Velocity it makes no difference:
Author a = AuthorPeer.retrieveByPK(id, con);
context.put("author", a);
List books = a .getBooks(con);
context.put("books", books);
I would not think so. If one knows that the property
torque.objectIsCaching exists, in the generator, and one decides not to
set it to false, one explicitly wants to have the caching. And if one
has it, is it not legimite to say "I only want to use the cached data,
and not hit the database"
Still it looks a bit clumsy to me.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
