cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carsten Ziegeler <>
Subject Re: [CForms] Repeater: why not hashCode for id?
Date Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:14:41 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>Yepp, that's true - but usually for your own business objects you know
>>if hashCode is unique or not.
> Hmm... *you* know, but I don't think all people take care of that!
Yes, that's true. Now, I don't want that the repeater always relies on
hashCode but
perhaps as a default - if no identity is given for example.
And everything else stays the same. But perhaps your suggestions below
are even better!

> No, the problem for me was time and lack of real need ;-)

> Now there may be a problem if the objects used to load the form need to 
> different from those used to save it, either because they're big (and we 
> don't want them to stay around until continuation expiration) or because 
> of transactional needs (e.g. Hibernate objects attached to different 
> sessions).
> Another idea I suggested (just comes back to my mind) is to have the 
> repeater record the row additions/moves/deletions occuring since the 
> last time it was loaded by the binding, and then have the binding replay 
> these events on the target collection on save. This avoids keeping the 
> objects around and also handles row deletions which my other proposal 
> doesn't.
> That may be a better solution. WDYT?
Yes, sounds very good to me! But in this case you still need an identity
property for replaying, or?


Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG

View raw message