Darn... > might have been caused by something else, which is just loosely related to > the change — a log in the code for all I know; the Schrödinger EOF behaviour > did bit me once or twice already
... I should have not written this part! I have seen the blasted “The shared context recently initialized the object ...” thing again. Added log to pursue it. It did not happen. Removed the log. It still did not happen. Curiouser and curiouser... Thanks and all the best, OC > On 29 Aug 2018, at 7:49 PM, ocs@ocs <o...@ocs.cz> wrote: > > Chuck, > >> On 29 Aug 2018, at 7:14 PM, Chuck Hill <ch...@gevityinc.com >> <mailto:ch...@gevityinc.com>> wrote: >> I am not sure that I am following this correctly. The rule is that no >> Shared EO should have a relationship to anything that is not also a Shared >> EO. > > The opposite direction (from normal EC to SEC) should be all right though, > should it not? > >> That includes the tables not materialized into an EO. > > I do not follow here. > > My shared entity S had no relationship to non-shared ones at all. Not even an > empty one; none altogether. > > My non-shared entity A has a to-many relationship “aaa” to a non-shared B; B > has a to-one relationship “bbb” to shared S (no inverse here). B is the M:N > table, i.e., it contains just the A's and S's PKs. > > When non-shared A contained a flattened relationship “ddd” defined as > “aaa.bbb”, EOF kept trying to load A into SEC (which naturally failed). > > I've removed the flattened “ddd” from the model (no other change there), and > implemented its behaviour manually (in A just getting “aaa” programmatically, > and then for all its objects collecting their “bbb”'s), and the problem > disappeared; A has been no more loaded to SEC. > > Of course, it might have been caused by something else, which is just loosely > related to the change — a log in the code for all I know; the Schrödinger EOF > behaviour did bit me once or twice already :) it does seem very weird to me > that the flattened thing should be the culprit; that's why I am asking > whether such kind of behaviour is to be expected, or whether I should try to > hunt for the culprit elsewhere. > > Thanks and all the best, > OC > >> >> From: Webobjects-dev >> <webobjects-dev-bounces+chill=gevityinc....@lists.apple.com >> <mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+chill=gevityinc....@lists.apple.com>> on >> behalf of "ocs@ocs" <o...@ocs.cz <mailto:o...@ocs.cz>> >> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 8:28 AM >> To: WebObjects-Dev Mailing List <webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com >> <mailto:webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com>> >> Subject: Flattened one-side M:N fails wildly with SharedEC >> >> Hi there, >> >> just have bumped into another weird (at least to me) behaviour. >> >> In my model, there used to be a very standard M:N relationship, which >> exploits an “invisible” intermediate table, flattened “direct” relationships >> ad both sides. >> >> One of the sides lately went to the sharedEC; thus I made sure to delete >> this side's flattened relationship. The other side and the intermediate >> table both stay outside of the sharedEC, so I thought that is all right. >> >> It failed miserably with “The shared context recently initialized the object >> <non-shared-one> which is already registered in this context yadda yadda”, >> i.e., EOF for some godforsaken reason kept loading the non-shared object >> (the one whose relationship remained intanct) into SEC along with the shared >> one (whose relationship were removed all right, no traces remained; I have >> checked about zillion times). >> >> Out of desperation, I have just tried to remov the flattened relationship >> from the non-shared side, exposing instead the intermediate table, and >> replacing the flattened relationship by something like >> >> === >> List availablePrototypes { // this is how the original flattened rel has >> been named >> def mn=this.db_Prototype_DataBlock // 1:N relationship to the >> intermediate table, exposed >> mn.collect { >> it.valueForKey('prototype') // N:1 relationship from the inmdt >> table to the shared object >> } >> } >> === >> >> and it seems to work all right :-O So, it looks like the culprit was the >> existence of the flattened rel with definiton >> “db_Prototype_DataBlock.prototype” at the non-shared side. >> >> Is that the intended behaviour? Seems pretty weird to me, but as always, I >> might be overlooking something of importance. Or should that work even with >> the flattened relationship, and the problems mean I must have done something >> wrong elsewhere? >> >> Thanks and all the best, >> OC > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ocs%40ocs.cz > > This email sent to o...@ocs.cz
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
