copyObject: deep or shallow copy?

• To: ozone-users@ozone-db.org
• Subject: copyObject: deep or shallow copy?
• From: Nathan Eric Probst <probst@pond.net>
• Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:43:11 -0700
• Delivered-To: softw7-ozone-db:org-ozone-users@ozone-db.org
• References: <C3A5057450DFD311B43A0090274FF2C101E5D678@ralsexch5.gecmc.ge.COM> <01040510294100.00749@sheepy>
• Sender: nathan@guppy.pond.net

I wonder if someone can give me a quick answer to this question.

Does Database.copyObject() to a deep copy or a shallow copy?

By way of example:

Say I have a three-layer deep graph of database objects that I want to use as a
template.  This objects are ititialized and maintained in a "blank" state.  I
want to do a deep copy of this graph when creating a new instance of an object
which contains this graph, but I don't want to get references (and thereby
modify) the original "blank" template objects?

Does this make sense?  Am I babbling?  I don't know...

Also, I seem to recall someone saying that copyObject had some performance
advantages.  Is this correct?

Thanks,
Nathan Probst

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: copyObject: deep or shallow copy?
    • From: Falko Braeutigam <falko@smb-tec.com>

• References:
  • Re: Package problem?
    • From: "Knapp, Robert (CAP, CMC)" <Robert_Knapp@mortgage.ge.com>
  • Re: Package problem?
    • From: Falko Braeutigam <falko@smb-tec.com>

• Prev by Date: Re: Package problem?
• Next by Date: Re: copyObject: deep or shallow copy?
• Prev by thread: Re: Package problem?
• Next by thread: Re: copyObject: deep or shallow copy?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread