Hi all.
Robert probably knows that he can overcome his problem by manually taking
care of entity's ID, but whole point of having custom DataSqueezer in
application should be that developer should never again have to worry what
part of entity is being squeezed, and how it is being unsqueezed afterwards.
As said, it all works nicely for listener parameters and form fields, but
strangely, same mechanism hasn't been utilized for client persistence.
Not that it bothers me, since I never used custom DataSqueezers, but I think
I understand Robert's confusion.
-Vjeran
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Piterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Persist large objects
I did not quite follow Henri's idea.
I would do exacly as you suggest- persist just the id and use it.
*maybe* that will work:
<property name="id" persist="..."/>
<property name="object" initial-value="populateId(id)"/>
public Object populateId(Object id) {
return ....;
}
Cheers,
Ron
ציטוט Martin Strand:
Ok, does that mean that the best way is to persist the object id and then
simply re-create the object myself on each request?
That's what I'm doing now, I just found that the same set of methods
(detach(), get/setSomeObject(), @Persist get/setSomeObjectId()) keeps
repeating itself in several of my page classes, so I figured perhaps
Tapestry could give me a hand. :)
--Martin
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:44:27 +0100, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The client property persistent manager doesn't use the data squeezer;
it always serializes a bunch of objects to a MIME64 stream. A
DataSqueezer is used for objects encoded as listener parameters or as
hidden form fields.
On 11/1/05, Robert Zeigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Create a custom data squeezer for your object and register it.
Robert
Martin Strand wrote:
> Hi.
> I want to persist a large object on the client, but it would be much
> better if I could just persist its id and then re-create it on the
> server on each request. Can Tapestry do this for me? I could do it
> myself, something like this:
>
> ----
> private User user;
>
> public void detach()
> {
> user = null;
> super.detach();
> }
>
> public User getUser()
> {
> if (user == null)
> {
> user = new User(getUserId());
> }
> return user;
> }
>
> @Persist("client:page")
> public abstract int getuserId();
> ----
>
>
>
> But I'd prefer to let Tapestry do it for me, something like this:
>
> ----
> @Persist("client:page")
> public abstract User getUser();
> ----
>
> How could I make the second version understand that it only needs to
> persist the user id?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 31.10.2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
