IIRC there were some locking jiras, but they will be treated as bugs,
not as limitation by design.
Andrus
On Jan 13, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 13/01/2009, at 11:09 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
I think it is a bug, and relating objects should be allowed
between parent/child contexts.
Not so. Parent/child relationship determines the path of the
select and commit operations, but has no effect on the rule that
each object belongs to just one context, and no relationships
between them are possible.
That's a little awkward then. If a user is in the middle of
creating a new Artist and decides to create a Painting (in a child
context), then it is troublesome to create the join. We can't move
the Artist into the child context so that it can be joined there
to the Painting, so I assume the only solution is to postpone the
join until the child context is committed back to its parent. But
that is awkward since while in the child editing context, the
Painting has no access to the Artist it should be related to.
This is approached differently. You would clone an Artist from the
parent to the child context via 'localObject' (even though the
parent object may still be NEW), and then set the relationship
between the two local objects.
Ah, so cloning a new object between contexts in this way is OK. That
would do nicely, although I thought for some reason we couldn't do
that for fear of some sort of locking problem. I'll give it a go.
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
