Just the other day I started to try to explain this to a co-worker and essentially told them "don't question it, just use it." That's probably not the best answer.
I'm still not sure I like the method name localObject(). I think it should be clear to the user that it takes an existing object (not a new one) in one context and makes a copy of it to be also managed by a different context. We need to keep localObject() around for a bit, though, for backward compatibility. Throwing some naming ideas out: add(object) manage(object) register(object) registerExistingObject(object) -- would be similar to registerNewObject(object) In short, though, I agree this API should die. :-) mrg On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1611 > > I've got tired of doing: > > Artist localArtist = (Artist) context.localArtist(artist.getObjectId(), null); > > Aside from causing confusion about the second argument (should it be > 'artist'? no, it should be null), it is still plain ugly. Anyone sees any > flaws with the reasoning behind this Jira? > > Andrus
