I have a application that is DO 3.9 and want to start extending it using DO 4. To do this I need a couple of shared object's , that exist in both DO 3.9 and 4. My site obect is in 3.9 so I created it in 4 and update any changes on the 3.9 version to the 4 version. Simple version of objects:
&
I use OnPropertyChanged to replicate changes of the value fields to the V4 objects. and add/remove from entityset when there is an add/remove on the DataObjectCollection. All works ok except Remove on the entity set, a call toD4RemovePostCode from RemovePostCode this throws the following exception: Message "Method not found: 'Void Xtensive.Storage.Internals.EntitySetItem If I perform the same operations in just D4 then remove works fine. Tony Steele NeighbourNet Ltd This thread was imported from our support forum. The original discussion may contain more detailed answer. Original topic by Anonymous. |
Alex (Xtensive) wrote:What build of DO4 you're using? If latest nightly, there is a bug with key caching, and we're working on it. Briefly, we've made a good performance optimization related to internal Key object representation, but there is a serious mistake now. It will be fixed today, and we'll update nightly build immediately. Issue: http://code.google.com/p/dataobjectsdot ... ail?id=299 Alex (Xtensive) wrote:Just looked up the stack trace - it seems there is a different problem. I've just created an issue for it: http://code.google.com/p/dataobjectsdot ... ail?id=301 Alex Kofman wrote:Just a little tip: Method Key.Resolve(tuple) become obsolete now. Use Query.Resolve() instead.
Will be transformed to:
Alex (Xtensive) wrote:I can explain the reasons:
So there will be both Single & SingleOrDefault, as in LINQ. Issue: http://code.google.com/p/dataobjectsdot ... ail?id=229 Likely, there will be other changes. We're thinking about renaming it to Query.Single. Anonymous wrote: Thanks for the tip, the method seemed a bit long winded, but the only way I could find in examples. Will try the next nightly build just in case. Tony Anonymous wrote: Just to confirm - my remove problem is fixed |