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". Andrus On Sep 3, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > 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 >
