Excellent. Unless there's some technical reason that a user advocate like me can't see, let's make this change. Craig, others, can you please comment?
--matthew >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Jefferson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:09 PM >To: 'JDO Expert Group'; [email protected] >Subject: Re: RETRY: Transient instance referencing a detached instance? > > >> > Would it be cleaner to not allow transient instances to be >included in >> > attachCopy() graphs at all? Sounds that way to me. >> >> No, I'd like to continue to allow transient instances to be >included in >> attachCopy graphs. I'd like to **add** the ability for >detached objects to >> be included in makePersistent graphs. > >I'll second this requirement. >I asked for it on 16 Sep - see the posting in the EG archives titled >"makePersistent with a detached object reachable". >We need a consistent interface for persistence, and having one method >(makePersistent) doing things one way and another(attachCopy) doing it >another doesn't help IMHO. > >A user wants to persist a new object. They want to relate it >to another object >(in this case detached, but it could be any old object), and >then do the >persist. Having to work out which method to call in what >circumstances, >dependent on what objects you just happen to have in the graph is not >user-friendly. > > >-- >Andy >
