> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Should localObject() traverse the whole graph? > > Hi Kevin, > > 'localObject' is not moving objects, between contexts. > Instead it locates an object counterpart (another copy) in > the target context, instantiating a fault if needed. In light > of that your question about graph traversal is probably not relevant. > > Andrus
Alright, looking at the implementation of localObject, it makes a lot more sense what's going on now. I guess I should have done that first. The section in the docs titled "Moving Objects Between Contexts" may be better named as well. So, if this is the appropriate behavior, is there a means of "moving" a whole graph to a new DC? The best I could come up with is iterating over the second DC's registered nodes and calling localObject() on them, but that still seems to require re-establishing the relationship arcs. This exercise is now more academic than anything else. I've got another solution that works. But I've been finding that as I add more DCs with non-trivial workflows, there's a lot of hoops to jump through to prevent early commits of incomplete data. Maybe the correct solution is to finally make it possible to associate two unregistered data objects and then only bring the DC into the mix once the data is all set . . . -- Kevin
