Darn, I thought his problem had gone away, but I still get the failure
to save from time to time (the probability of occurrence is pretty low
though).
I'm even setting the problematic relationship to nil before deleting
the object, then calling "-processPendingChanges", then saving the
obje
I don't think anyone has cared enough to file a bug on this.
I don't get it. There's an open manhole in the street with the manhole
cover lying right next to it, and the problem is that no one cared
enough to call the Department of Works to complain?
This has come up 3 or 4 times in about 6
On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Luke Evans wrote:
Well, I'm more than happy to file a bug, as it has been tricky to
figure out (and I would probably still be at it without your
interjection).
There are several ways to frame the problem of course: it could be a
documentation bug... things are
On Sep 29, 2009, at 21:56, Luke Evans wrote:
Well, I'm more than happy to file a bug, as it has been tricky to
figure out (and I would probably still be at it without your
interjection).
...
On 2009-09-29, at 8:16 PM, Ben Trumbull wrote:
...
I don't think anyone has cared enough to f
Well, I'm more than happy to file a bug, as it has been tricky to
figure out (and I would probably still be at it without your
interjection).
There are several ways to frame the problem of course: it could be a
documentation bug... things aren't as simple as might first appear in
the docs/g
On Sep 29, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Luke Evans wrote:
Hello Ben.
What happens if you add a call to -processPendingChanges in between
#2 and #3 ?
... well then everything works wonderfully (oh joy!!) :-)
OK. I need to get a proper mental picture of why this is needed in
this case.
I guess I wa
Hello Ben.
What happens if you add a call to -processPendingChanges in between
#2 and #3 ?
... well then everything works wonderfully (oh joy!!) :-)
OK. I need to get a proper mental picture of why this is needed in
this case.
I guess I was vaguely aware of this method from previous passe
Now, I have some code that changes the value of the 'B enumeration
value' that A is using. This does the following:
1. Create a new instance of the B subentity that represents the value
we want (in the same MOC as A)
2. Delete the old B object that A was pointing to, i.e. [moc
deleteObject:B];
3.
On Sep 28, 2009, at 17:20, Luke Evans wrote:
I have an entity (A) that has a to-one relationship with another
very simple abstract entity (B), a kind of an enumeration, whose
mere type represents the value. As a kind of enumeration value, the
B entity has a fixed number of concrete subent
I'm having some odd behaviour when saving a particular kind of change
and am having trouble groking was is going on.
I have an entity (A) that has a to-one relationship with another very
simple abstract entity (B), a kind of an enumeration, whose mere type
represents the value. As a kind
10 matches
Mail list logo
