[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It shows all 7 tags. However, the 6 and 7 do not stay saved. After save () is called, they are gone again. On Nov 2, 6:51 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Step 3.) call event with: tag1 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 6); tag2 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 7); post = Transfer.get(posts.post, 1); post.addTags(tag1); post.addTags(tag2); What happens if you dump the object at this point? Transfer.save(post); -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Okay, so the addTags() *does* work, just something is the save() is going fubar. (Probably has to do with cache synchronisation). I'm ripping apart Transfer at the moment, I have an idea what it may be... I'll have a look. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It shows all 7 tags. However, the 6 and 7 do not stay saved. After save () is called, they are gone again. On Nov 2, 6:51 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Step 3.) call event with: tag1 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 6); tag2 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 7); post = Transfer.get(posts.post, 1); post.addTags(tag1); post.addTags(tag2); What happens if you dump the object at this point? Transfer.save(post); -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Excellent! Thank you! Even though I've worked around the problem, it would be great if this worked, I've been quite curious as to why it doesn't. p.s. If you are ripping it apart, perhaps TQL query caching would be possible? :) On Nov 3, 2:31 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, so the addTags() *does* work, just something is the save() is going fubar. (Probably has to do with cache synchronisation). I'm ripping apart Transfer at the moment, I have an idea what it may be... I'll have a look. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It shows all 7 tags. However, the 6 and 7 do not stay saved. After save () is called, they are gone again. On Nov 2, 6:51 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Step 3.) call event with: tag1 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 6); tag2 = Transfer.get(tags.tag, 7); post = Transfer.get(posts.post, 1); post.addTags(tag1); post.addTags(tag2); What happens if you dump the object at this point? Transfer.save(post); -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Ok, I have tested this on CF8 and CF9 and I get identical behavior as I do with Railo. If I make a call to the SOMEPARENT.getWHATEVERArray() function, subsequent saves of many-to-many WHATEVER to SOMEPARENT do not save. The first addWHATEVER() works, but after that they fail to save. In this case, calling user.getPostsArray(); causes user.addPosts (newPost); not to save after the first attempt. p.s. I probably get under your skin at times, sorry! Anyway, by testing I hadn't meant unit tests, I'd just meant that I'd tried the functionality in various ways to test if it worked in production, not that the code was stable via unit test results. Considering I expect a lot of people have done this on CF8, I will be surprised if it doesn't work. That being said, I've been surprised before. Well... surprised? :) Maybe I'm oblivious to something huge here, but... maybe try my example and see? It's a pretty easy example.. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
So this is still directly related to having the object as a proxy, as opposed to having it as a full blown object? (Just curious how the performance is of 500 objects, I'd be doing that more as a query, but I digress) So some things to check out: cfoutput Is the object directy: #post.getIsDirty()# br/ Is the m2m loaded? : #post.getTagsIsLoaded()# br/ /cfoutput Those are the only 2 things that should stop the SQL from firing. What SQL are you seeing in the debug when you run your test case? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:40 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Ok, I have tested this on CF8 and CF9 and I get identical behavior as I do with Railo. If I make a call to the SOMEPARENT.getWHATEVERArray() function, subsequent saves of many-to-many WHATEVER to SOMEPARENT do not save. The first addWHATEVER() works, but after that they fail to save. In this case, calling user.getPostsArray(); causes user.addPosts (newPost); not to save after the first attempt. p.s. I probably get under your skin at times, sorry! Anyway, by testing I hadn't meant unit tests, I'd just meant that I'd tried the functionality in various ways to test if it worked in production, not that the code was stable via unit test results. Considering I expect a lot of people have done this on CF8, I will be surprised if it doesn't work. That being said, I've been surprised before. Well... surprised? :) Maybe I'm oblivious to something huge here, but... maybe try my example and see? It's a pretty easy example.. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Somehow 'dirty' came out as 'directy' I have no idea why... :( Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So this is still directly related to having the object as a proxy, as opposed to having it as a full blown object? (Just curious how the performance is of 500 objects, I'd be doing that more as a query, but I digress) So some things to check out: cfoutput Is the object directy: #post.getIsDirty()# br/ Is the m2m loaded? : #post.getTagsIsLoaded()# br/ /cfoutput Those are the only 2 things that should stop the SQL from firing. What SQL are you seeing in the debug when you run your test case? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:40 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Ok, I have tested this on CF8 and CF9 and I get identical behavior as I do with Railo. If I make a call to the SOMEPARENT.getWHATEVERArray() function, subsequent saves of many-to-many WHATEVER to SOMEPARENT do not save. The first addWHATEVER() works, but after that they fail to save. In this case, calling user.getPostsArray(); causes user.addPosts (newPost); not to save after the first attempt. p.s. I probably get under your skin at times, sorry! Anyway, by testing I hadn't meant unit tests, I'd just meant that I'd tried the functionality in various ways to test if it worked in production, not that the code was stable via unit test results. Considering I expect a lot of people have done this on CF8, I will be surprised if it doesn't work. That being said, I've been surprised before. Well... surprised? :) Maybe I'm oblivious to something huge here, but... maybe try my example and see? It's a pretty easy example.. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? On Nov 2, 1:56 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So this is still directly related to having the object as a proxy, as opposed to having it as a full blown object? (Just curious how the performance is of 500 objects, I'd be doing that more as a query, but I digress) So some things to check out: cfoutput Is the object directy: #post.getIsDirty()# br/ Is the m2m loaded? : #post.getTagsIsLoaded()# br/ /cfoutput Those are the only 2 things that should stop the SQL from firing. What SQL are you seeing in the debug when you run your test case? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:40 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Ok, I have tested this on CF8 and CF9 and I get identical behavior as I do with Railo. If I make a call to the SOMEPARENT.getWHATEVERArray() function, subsequent saves of many-to-many WHATEVER to SOMEPARENT do not save. The first addWHATEVER() works, but after that they fail to save. In this case, calling user.getPostsArray(); causes user.addPosts (newPost); not to save after the first attempt. p.s. I probably get under your skin at times, sorry! Anyway, by testing I hadn't meant unit tests, I'd just meant that I'd tried the functionality in various ways to test if it worked in production, not that the code was stable via unit test results. Considering I expect a lot of people have done this on CF8, I will be surprised if it doesn't work. That being said, I've been surprised before. Well... surprised? :) Maybe I'm oblivious to something huge here, but... maybe try my example and see? It's a pretty easy example.. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Yes, I've decided now to use the many-to-many for editing only, so anything POST/write is going to be using addTags(), and anything GET/ read is going to be TQL / SQL. That way I never call getTagsArray() (since there will be hundreds), but I can still use addTags() to add them. Since the tags are lazy-loaded and proxied, they don't add much weight to the objects at all. So any thoughts on if isLoaded() comes back false? And still comes back false after calling loadTags() ? On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
So any thoughts on if isLoaded() comes back false? And still comes back false after calling loadTags() ? I only have thoughts if it is actually doing that... Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
It was: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 3:22 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So any thoughts on if isLoaded() comes back false? And still comes back false after calling loadTags() ? I only have thoughts if it is actually doing that... Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Oops, I had a slight omission in the original post (or one of those following it, not sure at what point I came across this aspect of the behavior), the first addTags() after calling the array works, subsequent calls won't. Sorry, so I meant when running the event that does the save a second time. Order: 1.) Call an event that uses getTagsArray(); 2.) Call an event that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save works and tag shows up 3.) Call an event again that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save does not work, tag does not show up So, the first time I call the addTags() method after having called getTagsArray(), anything after that won't. On Nov 2, 3:44 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
addTags() works the first time, when I dump getTagsArray() after the first save, they show up. Any add or remove after that is not reflected in the object. On Nov 2, 4:09 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So what happens between: Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump out the tags - are all the tags there? or did addTags() not work? After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() What is weird is the getTagsIsLoaded() is being reset back to 'false', after the save. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Oops, I had a slight omission in the original post (or one of those following it, not sure at what point I came across this aspect of the behavior), the first addTags() after calling the array works, subsequent calls won't. Sorry, so I meant when running the event that does the save a second time. Order: 1.) Call an event that uses getTagsArray(); 2.) Call an event that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save works and tag shows up 3.) Call an event again that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save does not work, tag does not show up So, the first time I call the addTags() method after having called getTagsArray(), anything after that won't. On Nov 2, 3:44 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
That doesn't make sense how an add/remove doesn't fire on the object... even if the data is all wonky, the add/remove should still work. the proxy() method on the ObjectProxy always goes *somewhere* even if that somewhere goes to an error. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: addTags() works the first time, when I dump getTagsArray() after the first save, they show up. Any add or remove after that is not reflected in the object. On Nov 2, 4:09 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So what happens between: Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump out the tags - are all the tags there? or did addTags() not work? After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() What is weird is the getTagsIsLoaded() is being reset back to 'false', after the save. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Oops, I had a slight omission in the original post (or one of those following it, not sure at what point I came across this aspect of the behavior), the first addTags() after calling the array works, subsequent calls won't. Sorry, so I meant when running the event that does the save a second time. Order: 1.) Call an event that uses getTagsArray(); 2.) Call an event that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save works and tag shows up 3.) Call an event again that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save does not work, tag does not show up So, the first time I call the addTags() method after having called getTagsArray(), anything after that won't. On Nov 2, 3:44 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
That's why I'm asking you :) If I use addTags() and then save it, a dump of the object shows no new tags. However, if I use addTags() and then dump the object, before saving, there are tags... On Nov 2, 4:25 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't make sense how an add/remove doesn't fire on the object... even if the data is all wonky, the add/remove should still work. the proxy() method on the ObjectProxy always goes *somewhere* even if that somewhere goes to an error. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: addTags() works the first time, when I dump getTagsArray() after the first save, they show up. Any add or remove after that is not reflected in the object. On Nov 2, 4:09 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So what happens between: Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump out the tags - are all the tags there? or did addTags() not work? After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() What is weird is the getTagsIsLoaded() is being reset back to 'false', after the save. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Oops, I had a slight omission in the original post (or one of those following it, not sure at what point I came across this aspect of the behavior), the first addTags() after calling the array works, subsequent calls won't. Sorry, so I meant when running the event that does the save a second time. Order: 1.) Call an event that uses getTagsArray(); 2.) Call an event that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save works and tag shows up 3.) Call an event again that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save does not work, tag does not show up So, the first time I call the addTags() method after having called getTagsArray(), anything after that won't. On Nov 2, 3:44 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected. What results should I have for those two? Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a normal cfquery so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. Mark -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Okay, so you didn't really answer my question then, maybe I wasn't clear. Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump out the tags - are all the tags there? -- add some more tags -- dump it again, are the tags there? After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump it again, I assume the tags that were added are now gone? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:06 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: That's why I'm asking you :) If I use addTags() and then save it, a dump of the object shows no new tags. However, if I use addTags() and then dump the object, before saving, there are tags... On Nov 2, 4:25 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't make sense how an add/remove doesn't fire on the object... even if the data is all wonky, the add/remove should still work. the proxy() method on the ObjectProxy always goes *somewhere* even if that somewhere goes to an error. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: addTags() works the first time, when I dump getTagsArray() after the first save, they show up. Any add or remove after that is not reflected in the object. On Nov 2, 4:09 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: So what happens between: Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() -- dump out the tags - are all the tags there? or did addTags() not work? After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() What is weird is the getTagsIsLoaded() is being reset back to 'false', after the save. Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Oops, I had a slight omission in the original post (or one of those following it, not sure at what point I came across this aspect of the behavior), the first addTags() after calling the array works, subsequent calls won't. Sorry, so I meant when running the event that does the save a second time. Order: 1.) Call an event that uses getTagsArray(); 2.) Call an event that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save works and tag shows up 3.) Call an event again that uses addTags(tag); to add a tag, the save does not work, tag does not show up So, the first time I call the addTags() method after having called getTagsArray(), anything after that won't. On Nov 2, 3:44 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: Before calling getTagsArray(): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() After calling getTagsArray(): true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Immediately after first save (save works): false - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() Before second save: true - getIsDirty() true - getTagsIsLoaded() After second save (save fails): false - getIsDirty() false - getTagsIsLoaded() On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the objects. Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge number of objects is a bad idea... To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is unaffected.
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
I hate to beat this horse, but I'm still having this issue. The problem is even more prevalent now. I have many situations where I need to first get the array of items before using them, but doing so causes any add (or remove) of the many to many objects not to save. Any thoughts at all on this? Sorry and thanks! On Oct 9, 5:58 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: I have written a custom TQL that handles my problem and all is great, so this is not a question I *need* the answer to, but I'm still quite curious WHY this is happening. Any thoughts on why calling getPostsArray() first breaks the functionality to add a tag? On Sep 26, 7:53 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Ok, another update... if I set proxied=false on: onetomany name=posts lazy=true proxied=true link to=posts.post column=userID/ collection type=array /collection /onetomany Then it works! I can call getPostsArray() first and still add tags. So, having the onetomany posts object on users.user proxied causes the odd behavior. I don't think this should be happening. Yes, it works, but this means my call to getPostsArray() gives me an array of all of my actual posts.post objects instead of the proxied object, which I need. The posts.post objects are far too heavy when retrieving 100 (or in the case of my application, 500) objects. I need the proxy. Shouldn't I be able to call getPostsArray() and get proxied objects without this preventing me from adding tags.tag objects to the manytomany relationship? Seems like I should... I'd like to know what is is in the mechanics of making the parent's (users.user) relationship with the parent (posts.post) of the manytomany (tags.tag) proxied that breaks the adding of the manytomany on the child object (posts.post) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
The fact you are using Railo and that Transfer really isn't well tested (or tested at all) on that platform spring to mind Mark On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: I hate to beat this horse, but I'm still having this issue. The problem is even more prevalent now. I have many situations where I need to first get the array of items before using them, but doing so causes any add (or remove) of the many to many objects not to save. Any thoughts at all on this? Sorry and thanks! On Oct 9, 5:58 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: I have written a custom TQL that handles my problem and all is great, so this is not a question I *need* the answer to, but I'm still quite curious WHY this is happening. Any thoughts on why calling getPostsArray() first breaks the functionality to add a tag? On Sep 26, 7:53 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Ok, another update... if I set proxied=false on: onetomany name=posts lazy=true proxied=true link to=posts.post column=userID/ collection type=array /collection /onetomany Then it works! I can call getPostsArray() first and still add tags. So, having the onetomany posts object on users.user proxied causes the odd behavior. I don't think this should be happening. Yes, it works, but this means my call to getPostsArray() gives me an array of all of my actual posts.post objects instead of the proxied object, which I need. The posts.post objects are far too heavy when retrieving 100 (or in the case of my application, 500) objects. I need the proxy. Shouldn't I be able to call getPostsArray() and get proxied objects without this preventing me from adding tags.tag objects to the manytomany relationship? Seems like I should... I'd like to know what is is in the mechanics of making the parent's (users.user) relationship with the parent (posts.post) of the manytomany (tags.tag) proxied that breaks the adding of the manytomany on the child object (posts.post) -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
You seem to give me that answer a lot :) I'd say it's pretty well tested, seeing as I've tried just about everything you can try with Transfer on Railo and have repeatedly reported any odd behavior. So, doesn't this post count as me officially reporting odd behavior to you? I can't do a lot more than write up a huge post with all the details and submit it to the person who created the framework... as I've been doing. So, what's the next step? My problem is outlined pretty well... As it stands, if you call getWHATEVERArray() on an object... that disables the ability to save any many-to-many relationships on that object. I'll test this on CF8 and let you know... will you take a look at it if the results are the same? On Oct 27, 7:21 pm, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: The fact you are using Railo and that Transfer really isn't well tested (or tested at all) on that platform spring to mind Mark On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.orgwrote: I hate to beat this horse, but I'm still having this issue. The problem is even more prevalent now. I have many situations where I need to first get the array of items before using them, but doing so causes any add (or remove) of the many to many objects not to save. Any thoughts at all on this? Sorry and thanks! On Oct 9, 5:58 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: I have written a custom TQL that handles my problem and all is great, so this is not a question I *need* the answer to, but I'm still quite curious WHY this is happening. Any thoughts on why calling getPostsArray() first breaks the functionality to add a tag? On Sep 26, 7:53 am, whostheJBoss dotfus...@changethings.org wrote: Ok, another update... if I set proxied=false on: onetomany name=posts lazy=true proxied=true link to=posts.post column=userID/ collection type=array /collection /onetomany Then it works! I can call getPostsArray() first and still add tags. So, having the onetomany posts object on users.user proxied causes the odd behavior. I don't think this should be happening. Yes, it works, but this means my call to getPostsArray() gives me an array of all of my actual posts.post objects instead of the proxied object, which I need. The posts.post objects are far too heavy when retrieving 100 (or in the case of my application, 500) objects. I need the proxy. Shouldn't I be able to call getPostsArray() and get proxied objects without this preventing me from adding tags.tag objects to the manytomany relationship? Seems like I should... I'd like to know what is is in the mechanics of making the parent's (users.user) relationship with the parent (posts.post) of the manytomany (tags.tag) proxied that breaks the adding of the manytomany on the child object (posts.post) -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[transfer-dev] Re: Revised many to many problem, even stranger
Ok, another update... if I set proxied=false on: onetomany name=posts lazy=true proxied=true link to=posts.post column=userID/ collection type=array /collection /onetomany Then it works! I can call getPostsArray() first and still add tags. So, having the onetomany posts object on users.user proxied causes the odd behavior. I don't think this should be happening. Yes, it works, but this means my call to getPostsArray() gives me an array of all of my actual posts.post objects instead of the proxied object, which I need. The posts.post objects are far too heavy when retrieving 100 (or in the case of my application, 500) objects. I need the proxy. Shouldn't I be able to call getPostsArray() and get proxied objects without this preventing me from adding tags.tag objects to the manytomany relationship? Seems like I should... I'd like to know what is is in the mechanics of making the parent's (users.user) relationship with the parent (posts.post) of the manytomany (tags.tag) proxied that breaks the adding of the manytomany on the child object (posts.post) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups transfer-dev group. To post to this group, send email to transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
