I'm missing something. I don't understand why you don't do something
along these lines.
nonpersistentObject.setObjectId(new Timestamp());
You don't have to use the same kinds of object ids for your
non-persistent objects, and using a different type will guarantee that
a persistent and non-persistent object will never be equal to each
other.
On 3/27/07, Peter Karich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you both Mike and Bryan!
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> What about creating and setting your own ObjectID values for your
> non-persistent components?
Yes, I though about that, but the persistent objects should also have
this sort of ID. But then I need a database stored counter to avoid that
the objectID starts from 0 on every new program start. And so the
database generated ID would make this job.
Bryan Maine schrieb:
> Anyway, if you need to do it, this code works: ...
This sort of code works fine. The problem is that it only works with
persistent objects...
Hmmh,
through the discussion I think I should NOT use the ID's!
So if the following is true under ALL circumstances (get the objects
from different context or sth.) then I am satisfied:
if "obj1 == obj2" then "pk(obj1) == pk(obj2)"
AND if "pk(obj1) == pk(obj2)" then "obj1 == obj2".
I think the first line is always true, what about the second?
Then I can create a SimilarEntry which holds a TimeInterval and
"overloads" the equals method by comparing by the pointers ("obj1 ==
obj2") and do not need the ID's.
Thank you,
Peter Karich.
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
