The only way to achieve this in general would be modifying the object.vm
template which generatates the get${relCol} method.
I would believe that the behaviour you describe would make sense
generally. Any opinions on that from other people ? By doing this one
would increase coupling between objects.
Thomas
> Maybe the subject makes sense. Let me explain.
>
> I have two tables, PURCHASE_ORDER and ITEM. ITEM has a foreign key to
> PRUCHASE_ORDER. Thus, the generated BasePurchaseOrder class has a
> getItems() method that returns all the items associated with a
PurchaseOrder.
>
> I find myself with code in the Item class that needs to work with its
> PurchaseOrder, so it does calls getPurchaseOrder(). The problem is that
> this method loads a new copy (and a new object) from PURCHASE_ORDER.
> I'd rather have a reference to the original PurchaseOrder. Consider
> this code:
>
> PurchaseOrder po = PurchaseOrderPeer.retrieveByPK(poid);
> for (Item item : po.getItems())
> item.doWork();
>
> in Item.doWork():
>
> log.info("I'm part of order "+getPurchaseOrder().getID());
>
> Okay, so log.info may be trivial, but you get the point--the
> getPurchaseOrder() call will create a new object from the database.
>
> Is there a way I can pre-populate the Items' aPurchaseOrder to the
> object I start with (po)?
>
> I know there are some doSelectJoinXXX methods, but they didn't look like
> exactly what I wanted. My straw-man approach is to override getItems as
> in PurchaseOrder as in
>
> @Override
> public List<Item> getItems() throws TorqueException
> {
> List<Item> items = super.getItems();
>
> for (Item item : items)
> item.setPurchaseOrder(this);
>
> return items;
> }
>
> but this seems tacky to use on every call.
>
> Brendan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
