I don't remember the exact details, so this might be wrong. But what about putting the constant tables into a parent DataContext, then doing all of your work in the child DataContext? Does that remove the need for using localObject, but still give you the flexibility to toss the child context objects?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, thanks. I wasn't certain of that by any means and am too buried > in other stuff to look it up. > > The pattern of using a dedicated DataContext for the small/cached > tables and using localObject to make joins to them would still apply, > though. > > mrg > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Andrus Adamchik > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 30, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: >> >>> I think in Cayenne 3 that it'll automatically pull an object >>> into the DataContext if it exists in another DataContext. >> >> Not true. (well only true for transient unregistered objects). Generally you >> still need to use 'localObject'. >> >> Andrus >> >> >
