I didn't mean to make anyone go out and code this up for me to see if
it worked, I was really just curious how others handled this problem.
Thanks for trying it out though Chris!
I did try it out last night myself and it worked just fine. The only
trick was to dummy up a primary key, as Chris has done as well. In
this case I just used the name of the person submitting the contact
form.
Most objects in a site/application are probably persisted in some way
but there are a few that never need to be. At work we have two
different methods we use for persisted and non-persisted data, but it
seems kind of messy to me since 95% of the logic is the same. The
only difference in this case is that instead of calling .save() I am
sending an email and then throwing the data away.
The only thing that get's a little messy, in my implementation, is the
fact that I have my application set up with MG and CS and so I have
the view, controllers, services, and then gateways/dao's. Instead of
exposing Transfer to the service level and using it to replace all my
gateway/dao functionality, I expose Transfer at the gateway/dao level
as more of a wrapper. Change the ORM, change the gateways/daos
instead of the entire service layer. You might be able to imagine how
this kind of creates some goofiness as I have to have a method in the
gateway that creates the empty Transfer object for me. It works, but
I'm not entirely happy with it at the moment.
If anyone else has any comments on how they accomplish this I'd love
to hear them. And Mark, thank's for checking in to see if this worked
and for saving me plenty of time that otherwise would have been wasted
persisting data!
John
On Nov 19, 4:55 am, "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure enough, I setup a simple transfer xml for a non-existing object:
>
> <object name="phantom" table="notReal">
> <id name="ID" type="numeric" />
> <property name="name" type="string" column="name" />
> </object>
>
> Then I used it, as such:
>
> application.cs.getBean("transfer").new("phantom")
>
> and it dumped out exactly what I would expect, a transfer object of type
> phantom, and I could use setName("foo") without any problems. Sounds like
> an interesting method of using transfer for transient-persistance, kinda
> cool. Maybe you could even write a save() method on there, to commit it to
> another data location other than the database? Might be a cool way of
> wrapping up all different data locations in a standardized way. Cool stuff,
> good idea =)
>
> Chris Peterson
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens if you create the objects with a table/columns that don't
> > exist?
>
> > As long as you don't save() or get(), you shouldn't get errors.
>
> > Mark
>
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Jared Rypka-Hauer
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, this isn't something that Transfer does... it has to have the
> > > database there to provide properties for the objects, so without a DB
> > > table you have nothing to provide the object definition. I think it
> > > would be sweet if Transfer's config would provide a way to configure
> > > it with objects outside the DB model that you could simply retrieve
> > > from the Transfer object... making it into an object factory as well
> > > as a persistence engine.
>
> > > You might try creating an object tagset that doesn't have a DB table
> > > and then calling new() against it, but I think that would fail when
> > > Transfer tried to create the metadata for the object.
>
> > > Something to think about, anyway.
>
> > > J
>
> > > On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:15 PM, John K. wrote:
>
> > >> So I've encountered this problem a few times and each time I seem to
> > >> stumble on figuring out how to best solve it. Sorry if this has been
> > >> discussed here, I looked through pages and pages and did some searches
> > >> but came up with nothing.
>
> > >> The site I am designing has several objects (dogs, calendar events,
> > >> ads, etc.). These all need to be created in the database, updated,
> > >> etc. Perfect opportunity to use Transfer to make these database
> > >> functions simple. I am able to set this up just fine and have
> > >> incorporated validation into the works so that the data the user
> > >> submits can be validated server side and returned to the form for
> > >> corrections if necessary.
>
> > >> My problem comes in when I start to work with things like a contact
> > >> form. I really want all the functionality of a Transfer object,
> > >> except I'll never have to interact with the database. I will just
> > >> validate, return the user to the form to correct errors (invalid email
> > >> address, missing info, etc.) if necessary and then once the submission
> > >> is valid I'll send an email to the proper administrator.
>
> > >> Has anyone used Transfer in this way? How so? Is it just as simple
> > >> as mocking up and using the object but never saving the data? Have
> > >> you come up with a better way to make this work? Maybe it's just late
> > >> and this is as simple as it sounds.
>
> > >> John
>
> > --
> > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > W:www.compoundtheory.com
>
> --
> Hey! I dont tell you how to tell me what to do, so dont tell me how to do
> what you tell me to do! ~ Bender (Futurama)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
