Hello,
and thank you for your numerous answers. I have to admit that
my first mail was a little bit unprecise in some points, so
I'm trying to get this right. Perhaps I should notice that I'm
quite new to Torque, bot not to O/R mapping...
My problem in general, the saving of an object tree, is solved
by generating the save methods, as I had generated my OM classes
with option
"torque.addSaveMethod = false"!
I just don't like the idea of TOs having logic in them. I would
prefer dumb beans as TOs and smart DAOs aka Peers. Is there any
way in Torque of getting my code generated in that way (I guess
there is no way...) - or in other words: can Torque fit the DAO
pattern?
Yesterday, after having written my mail, I noticed that, in the
Peer.vm template, the code for the modified flag is not written
in that case:
Peer.vm:
#if ($addSaveMethod)
obj.setModified(false);
#end
I don't understand the relation between generating the save methods
and _not_ setting the modifed flag to false for a fresh row from DB
in that case.
Also, when addSaveMethod option is set to true, the saving of
the object tree is implemented in the save method of each object,
e.g. BaseBook.
@Howard:
> For your second question, I don't think it's a bug. I think Torque
> assumes you are going to do something with the object, otherwise you
> can always call setModified(false) before call save.
I don't think that this is right, at least from a idealistic point of
view. A row that is fresh from DB _is_ not modified. Why setting the
flag to "true" just for the case? In my opinion, every setter method,
e.g. book.setName(), should set the modified flag to true when used.
The problem with unwanted updates is that there may be a DB trigger that
will be fired onUpdate - even when there is nothing to update...
Greetings, and thanks for your help again,
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
