On 11/21/01 3:17 AM, "Byron Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was wonder what the thinking was behind removing the preSave method > and if there are plans on implementing alternatives? The preSave method > offered a nice way for the base class to provide a more managed and > safer environment for a derived object to prepare itself to be saved. > For example a method such as preSave could do the following: > > o Guarantee that the object has been modified, and really will be saved. > o preSave would be called only once during a save operation. > o The Base class could prepare itself for operations within the preSave > that may change what is saved and offer protection against unexpected > state changes. > o The Base class could manage when the preSave is called in relation to > other objects being saved and other preSave method calls. > o Prevent infinite loops because of OM object method calls from within > save operations. > > I lean toward making the save methods final, And only allowing the > derived OM object to override preSave, or some such method. I think > this allows more flexibility in future changes to torque without hosing > current applications of it. > > Thoughts? I think all the things you mention above should be handled transparently. The methods available to application objects should be as small as possible, your basic CRUD and that's about it. I don't see much point in preSave(). > Thanks, > Byron > > > > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
