I'd just call it a feature ;) > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:40 PM > To: 'Tapestry users' > Subject: RE: tapestry-hibernate integration problem > > > You're right. I need to fix that. There was not supposed to > be any active > transaction while I was updating the properties (using the example > application). I assumed that since there was no transaction > present that > the changes to the objects in the session wouldn't be > persistent. But, > maybe there was an active transaction. Hmmmmm. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:20 AM > To: 'Tapestry users' > Subject: RE: tapestry-hibernate integration problem > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:42 AM > > To: 'Tapestry users' > > Subject: RE: tapestry-hibernate integration problem > > > > > > Anything which really wants to update the persistent objects > > should go on > > inside a service method. Then you can put the transaction > > interceptor on > > it. > > I disagree. When you work directly on your domain model, you > only have to > commit. Even in Tapernate, when you persistence strategy > loads an entity > from its id, you can just let tapestry change properties and > commit them. > What service method do you call in addition? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
