Hi all!
I re-wrote the design for PersistentObject 1.5 on basis of the proposed
solutions in this thread. The issues are now cleared to my satisfaction.
Hope the same for you. Please take a look at it please and comment here.
The document can be found as usually in SVN:
Hi Tobias
Tobias Schlitt wrote:
To summarize the daily usage of the new features in short:
Using identity mapping
==
Change your current code
$session = new ezcPersistentSession( ... );
to
$innerSession = new ezcPersistentSession( ... );
$session = new
Tobias Schlitt wrote:
The set stuff is only needed, if you intend to fetch just a subset of
related obbjects (not all). For example, if you want to fetch the top 3
sold books for each author.
It's time the holiday starts... why didn't I make the link? A set is a
collection and since the
Hi!
I thought a bit more about the open issues with the PersistentObject
identity map design and try to summarize them (+ suggested solutions) in
this mail for further discussions.
Refetching objects
==
Problem
---
It might be desirable to re-fetch a set of objects during a
Hi!
Tobias Schlitt wrot
Refetching objects
==
Problem
---
It might be desirable to re-fetch a set of objects during a request. A
global switch in the ezcPersistentIdentityMap instance will allow this
to happen. If this switch is turned on,
Hi!
On 07/08/2008 01:02 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote:
Refetching objects
==
Problem
---
It might be desirable to re-fetch a set of objects during a request. A
global switch in the ezcPersistentIdentityMap instance will allow this
Derick Rethans wrote:
8-- snip --8
I don't quite see why you need this set stuff... it seems all so
complicated.
That's my problem with this new proposed stuff for PO. While it sounds
nice in theory, for now it looks like an overcomplicated API.
Regards,
Hans
--
Components mailing list
Hi Hans!
On 07/08/2008 04:02 PM Hans Melis wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
8-- snip --8
I don't quite see why you need this set stuff... it seems all so
complicated.
That's my problem with this new proposed stuff for PO. While it sounds
nice in theory, for now it looks like an
On 08/07/2008, Tobias Schlitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Hans!
On 07/08/2008 04:02 PM Hans Melis wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
8-- snip --8
I don't quite see why you need this set stuff... it seems all so
complicated.
That's my problem with this new proposed stuff for PO.
