You're headed in the right direction, looking to use the composed relationships. But ...
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM, <[email protected]> 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
