Hi Anthony,

in my app, I tend to always detach records, to display and update them
in the presentation layer. I also detach them to handle business rules
in the business layer. Cases where I read / udpate / commit from within
a single Simpleorm transaction are ... well, I don't have such case
until now :) And I have been beaten by the destroy behaviour in methods
that were only querying data, where I would detach the main record, but
not the one implicitely attached to the transaction because they were
references.

But I understand your argument. Maybe I could add a method to
SConnection to detach all records, leaving the default behaviour to
destroying, but giving one stop choice for those of the detaching kind
like me.

Don't know if somebody else has an opinion on the subject ?

Franck


Le dimanche 03 février 2008 à 19:50 +1000, Anthony & Melissa Berglas a
écrit :
> Simply that accessing records after a commit is probably a
> bug. Updates to the records will not be reflected in the
> database. So the symptoms could be obscure and nasty. I do prefer
> the explicit detach.
>
> Anthony
>
> At 08:27 PM 29-01-08, Franck Routier wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am considering making detaching the records from the connection the
> >default behaviour, instead of destroying them, when
> committing/closing
> >the connection.
> >
> >But I am eager to understand why destroying the records was the
> default
> >behaviour in the first place... Any enlightenmnet on this ?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Franck
> >
> >
>
> EMail: berglas@...
>
> +61 7 3369 4065 (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
>
> If the model seems correct only because the numbers look right,
> then why build the model in the first place?
>
>
>
>
--
Franck Routier
Axège Sarl - 23, rue Saint-Simon, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand (FR)
Tél : +33 463 059 540
mèl : franck.routier@...