Re: Object scope issue...

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

How is your business object set up? When you say the user clicks to save a row, are you using a datagridview, or do you mean just to add a new object?

Have you checked out Deborah Kurata's book "Doing Objects in VB2005" ? It talks about how to handle the state of an object, and how to handle updates. Great book.

RobinS.
GoldMail, Inc.
-------------------------------------
"Brad Pears" <bradp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OMG8tNEaIHA.3940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I just have a question about how objects should be used in situations where you want to preserve an object's state while performing some particular function.

In my vb.net 2005 app, a user enters data and then clicks a "Save" command
button to save the row. If the user simply changes existing data on the
form, (meaning a row already exists) I only do a database update. However,
if the user was adding a new row I would have first created a new instance
of the object and subsequently added the row data to the database.

I set up the object as a "public" variable in my main vb module like this...

"public MyObj as clsMyObj"

Then in the "Save" command button code, I first check to see if MyObj =
nothing. If so, I then create a new instance of the object (MyObj=new
clsMyObj) and run code that inserts the new row.

If the user were to go back and modify some data and clicks the "Save" command button again, I
would expect my code above (if MyObj = nothing ) to be false and I would
then just update the data as opposed to updating it.

Is this typically how one would control an objects scope - by setting as a public variable and checking to see if
the object = nothing or object = something? If so than does this mean that for any object that I need to preserve scope, I need to setup as a
public variable?

I am new to OO design etc... and I want to make sure that I don't have copies of objects all over the place etc... It seems that there must be a better way to do this?

Help!

Thanks, Brad



.

Quantcast