>From memory, I think the IsisJdoSupport service has some flush or refresh
methods; I forget the details.

Dan

Sorry to be brief, sent from my phone
On 29 Mar 2014 11:15, "GESCONSULTOR" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Objects are only in transient state while being configured on the "create"
> action (factory method) that usually ends with a "persist(entity)".
>
> We've overridden the persist method In our base AbstractService used as
> the parent for repositories to always do a flush().
>
> Perhaps bulk inserts would be slower but it's completely preferred to not
> having the other side's collection updated.
>
> As updates are managed by Isis the previous one (entity created on
> transient state and before executing a persist that always includes a
> flush) is the only possible case I think where the state on bidirectional
> relationships would be inconsistent. And that's ok as it's when your
> initializing its state.
>
> HTH,
>
> Oscar
>
>
>
>
> > El 29/03/2014, a las 04:27, John Lafer <[email protected]> escribió:
> >
> > Thanks Dan, Jeroen and Oscar.
> >
> > Using your input I have the dialogue window returning as required.
> >
> > However, I do have a nagging concern about NOT eagerly implementing the
> mutual registration pattern in my code. I guess the JDO layer is using the
> annotations and the reference from the child to the parent in order to
> persist the bi-directional relationship. And at some point it fixes up all
> references between in-memory objects. That's fine but it feels risky to
> operate, prior to the persistence operation (flush?), with an object graph
> that is not quite complete. Specifically, the parent's collection of child
> objects does not include the newly added child until the JDO layer does
> it's thing, if I understand it right. I suppose there are some conventions
> on how to work with this "transient" data safely, but I don't have that
> figured out yet.
> >
> > I wouldn't be concerned yet except it seems that by removing the mutual
> registration boilerplate code, some of my fixtures are now breaking with
> null pointer exceptions. I've probably done something else wrong and need
> to debug this, but it does seem like a suspicious coincidence.
> >
> > Net: I need to keep researching and playing with this I think.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Dan Haywood <[email protected]>
> > To: users <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Returning from an Action to the Action-owning Entity
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, just updating that page [3] now to point those out [4]
> >
> >
> > [4] http://isis.apache.org/intro/resources/editor-templates.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 March 2014 09:13, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >>
> >>
> >> Simply to notice, if you're interested also on alternative
> implementations of the 1-n relationship (such as with Join tables), or m-n
> relationships, or 1-1 relationships (both bidirectional and unidirectional)
> the Eclipse Isis Templates have different examples, all them beginning with
> the "isjd" prefix.
> >>
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >>
> >>
> >> Oscar
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://isis.apache.org/intro/resources/editor-templates.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> El 27/03/2014, a las 10:08, Dan Haywood <[email protected]>
> escribió:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi John, welcome.
> >>>
> >>> As Jeroen says, the way to return to the original object is to "return
> >>> this" rather than void.
> >>>
> >>> We actually had a discussion about this a little while back on the
> mailing
> >>> list [1], and I raised a ticket then [2] as a placeholder.
> >>>
> >>> ~~~
> >>> Also, you mentioned you've implemented the mutual registration
> pattern. If
> >>> you're using the JDO objectstore (you probably are), then you probably
> >>> don't need to do this if you mark up the relationship as bidirectional
> [3].
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-666
> >>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/xhmeq62ywr2vqvje
> >>> [3]
> >>>
> http://isis.apache.org/components/objectstores/jdo/managed-1-to-m-relationships.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 27 March 2014 07:39, Jeroen van der Wal <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> accidentally sent, add this:
> >>>>
> >>>> public Invoice addInvoiceItem(..) {
> >>>>    invoiceItems.create(...);
> >>>>
> >>>> *    return this;*
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that the viewer should return the last screen after a void
> action.
> >>>> Perhaps you could raise a ticket?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeroen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeroen van der Wal <
> [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi John, welcome to the Isis mailing list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you use JDO there's no need to use the mutual registration
> pattern [1]
> >>>>> which saves a lot of boilerplate code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The pattern that we have currently in Estatio when creating child
> object
> >>>>> return the parent object after adding a new child.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> public Invoice addInvoiceItem(..) {
> >>>>>    ....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:53 AM, John Lafer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello Isis Users,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm a first-time user with likely a naive question. I'm using Isis
> 1.40
> >>>>>> and the Wicket viewer. I defined an action for a (parent) entity
> that
> >>>>>> allows the user to create a child (1-M) object and add it to a
> >>>>>> collection
> >>>>
> >>>> in the parent. When the user fills out the required child fields and
> >>>>>> presses the OK button in the modal dialog window, the view switches
> to a
> >>>>>> page with a message ("No results") under a title ("Add a <name of
> child
> >>>>>> entity>"). I wrote the action to return void and I thought this
> would
> >>>>>> allow
> >>>>
> >>>> the action to return the user to the parent entity detail (or edit)
> >>>>>> page,
> >>>>
> >>>> which is what I desire. I've implemented the mutual registration
> pattern
> >>>>>> and the child object is being added to the parent's collection just
> >>>>>> fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any ideas on what I'm missing?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> >>>>>> John
> >>
> >>
> >> Óscar Bou Bou
> >> Responsable de Producto
> >> Auditor Jefe de Certificación ISO 27001 en BSI
> >> CISA, CRISC, APMG ISO 20000, ITIL-F
> >>
> >>    902 900 231 / 620 267 520
> >>    http://www.twitter.com/oscarbou
> >>
> >>    http://es.linkedin.com/in/oscarbou
> >>
> >>    http://www.GesConsultor.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Este mensaje y los ficheros anexos son confidenciales. Los mismos
> contienen información reservada que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha
> recibido este correo por error, tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo de su
> sistema y avisar al remitente mediante reenvío a su dirección electrónica;
> no deberá copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.
> >> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales constan
> en un fichero titularidad de Gesdatos Software, S.L. cuya finalidad es la
> de mantener el contacto con Ud. Si quiere saber de qué información
> disponemos de Ud., modificarla, y en su caso, cancelarla, puede hacerlo
> enviando un escrito al efecto, acompañado de una fotocopia de su D.N.I. a
> la siguiente dirección: Gesdatos Software, S.L. , Paseo de la Castellana,
> 153 bajo - 28046 (Madrid), y Avda. Cortes Valencianas num. 50, 1ºC - 46015
> (Valencia). Asimismo, es su responsabilidad comprobar que este mensaje o
> sus archivos adjuntos no contengan virus informáticos, y en caso que los
> tuvieran eliminarlos.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to