Okay, if the DB transactional safety can be ignored in this example. The only way that comes to mind to make this work is to have your JE objects have an option Transaction property. Then after you create the Transaction instance you would set it on each of the JE's.
Does that work for your situation? Nathan ----- "Derek Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan Anderson wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I assume a "JE" is a Journal Entry and in modern accounting > practices it > > is typical that a single "Transaction" has at least 2 JE's. What > I'm not > > sure about is why the JE's are required to be created before the > > Transaction. This sounds like a case where you want to use a > database > > transaction to guarantee that either all the JE's and the > accounting > > Transaction are all created or not (i.e. no orphan objects persisted > in > > the database). In which case I'd make the Transaction first and add > the > > JE's either one at a time or as a list, but don't commit the > database > > transaction until the Transaction object is populated. > > > > Transactional safety (in the DB transaction sense) isn't important. > But I > can't see a reasonable way to create a Transaction before a JE - > you're > right that each Transaction must have at least two JEs, but you start > with > an Account - and an account doesn't have Transactions, it has JEs. > -- > derek > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
