cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: ObjectContext.localObject refactoring
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:54:55 GMT
The way I see it is that the concept itself is specific to Cayenne architecture and requires
some understanding. So if we call the method something else, by itself it may not be sufficient
to make it self-explanatory.

E.g. like I mentioned to me the best definition of this method is "mapping a peer object in
a different context". But I don't think it will be clear if we call the method "mapPeer".


On Sep 3, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Andrus Adamchik <> wrote:
>> Anyways, my suggestion would be to keep 'localObject' name for now. It is not ideal
but good enough IMO.
> Well, every co-worker I've ever told about localObject() found the
> name confusing to them, which is why I was encouraging a new name.
> We actually use localObject() a decent amount because we pull a master
> object into a new DataContext for editing purposes.  It gives us the
> ability to abandon any changes easily if needed.  So, I've been
> through this explanation a few times now.  :-)
> Thanks,
> mrg

View raw message