Re: xcode 2.2 coredata accessors
Re: xcode 2.2 coredata accessors
- Subject: Re: xcode 2.2 coredata accessors
- From: Jim Correia <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:18:48 -0500
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Miguel Sanchez wrote:
The issue is related to handling of nil values for accessors that
use primitive types instead of an object class (NSNumber).
Basically, if you HAVE NOT generated your own accessors, the
default managed object implementation behaves as if the accessors
were taking full objects (NSNumbers). So we decided to make the
change in the generated accessors to use NSNumber and achieve
functional parity with default non-accessor behavior.
Having accessors that use primitive values might make some of the
UI code (specially using bindings) behave a bit different from the
non-accessor case when it comes to interpreting nil values.
Miguel,
Thanks for the explanation. If the accessors are only used by
bindings, NSNumber vs. primitive value isn't a big deal (and the
primitive value accessors offer no real advantage.) However, the
primitive value accessors can be much more convenient for
programmatic access.
Is it safe to continue using primitive value accessors if I'm willing
to implement setNilValueForKey in the appropriate places, or face the
consequences (in the form of NSInvalidArgumentException)? Or is there
more to it than that?
Thanks,
Jim
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden