Fabio, I believe the example I posted was meant for database deployments where database-level cascade deletes aren't an option - I was already aware of the "on-cascade='delete'" option for the inverse side of sets when it is.
I've opened an initial ticket in JIRA - I'll see what I can do about putting together some example code in the next few days (currently swamped here at work). Cheers, -Dan On Mar 12, 11:39 am, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > well... what can I say ?.... > If you are a ConfORM user you will see which is the mapping pattern for a > bidirectional-one-to-many with *one-shot-delete* : > public class Item > { > private ISet<Bid> _bids; > public long Id { get; private set; } > public ISet<Bid> Bids > { > get { return _bids; } > > } > } > > public class Bid > { > public long Id { get; private set; } > public Item Item { get; set; } > public Double Amount { get; private set; } > public string Code { get; private set; } > > } > > The whole mapping in ConfORM is : > public void MapDomain(ObjectRelationalMapper orm) > { > orm.TablePerClass(new[] { typeof(Item), typeof(Bid) }); > orm.Patterns.PoidStrategies.Add(new NativePoidPattern()); > > } > > *Yes! only two lines!* > > And the result XML is (for those about to rock) : > <class name="Item"> > <id name="Id" type="Int64"> > <generator class="native" /> > </id> > <set name="Bids" access="nosetter.camelcase-underscore" inverse="true" > cascade="all,delete-orphan"> > <key column="Item" on-delete="cascade" /> > <one-to-many class="Bid" /> > </set> > </class> > <class name="Bid"> > <id name="Id" type="Int64"> > <generator class="native" /> > </id> > <many-to-one name="Item" /> > <property name="Amount" /> > <property name="Code" /> > </class> > > As you can see ConfORM knows how map the *one-shot-delete* : > <set name="Bids" access="nosetter.camelcase-underscore" inverse="true" > cascade="all,delete-orphan"> > <key column="Item" on-delete="cascade" /> > <one-to-many class="Bid" /> > </set> > > btw... backing to our concern if you have time to create a test to pass and > a JIRA ticket we can study a solution. > > 2010/3/12 DanPlaskon <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Fabio, > > > Alright - I see what you're getting at...something like this: > > >http://elegantcode.com/2009/07/19/nhibernate-2-1-and-collection-event... > > (but obviously handing validation events) > > > Also...wouldn't we be interested in > > > IPreCollectionUpdateEventListener > > IPreCollectionRemoveEventListener > > > Instead of the "Post" ones? > > > I imagine these would need to examine only "Size" and "NotNull" > > validation attributes on collections, to ensure that the contraints > > specified were satisfied. > > > Is this along the lines of what you were thinking? > > > On Mar 12, 10:55 am, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > More than a workaroud we should think about a solution > > > IPostCollectionUpdateEventListener > > > IPostCollectionRemoveEventListener > > > > Can you study it a little bit and send me a proposal ? > > > > If you have time obviously. > > > > btw a JIRA ticket is welcomehttp://216.121.112.228/browse/NHV > > > > 2010/3/12 DanPlaskon <[email protected]> > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I have a "Size" validation constraint specified for a collection on an > > > > entity of mine (Min is set to 1, to specify that the entity must have > > > > at least one child entity in its collection). > > > > > This works as expected for the initial creation, however validation > > > > does not occur upon update of the entity if the only change made to it > > > > is to remove all child entities from the collection. I imagine this > > > > occurs because the entity itself is not considered dirty (since the > > > > only changes made were to its collection of child entities), and thus > > > > the ValidatePreUpdateEventListener does not evaluate it at all. > > > > However, this poses a problem, because the entity has technically > > > > entered an invalid state (its collection does not contain any child > > > > entities) and NHibernate is all to happy to remove all child entities > > > > without checking the validity of the parent. > > > > > So...that being said...what's the workaround for this? If further > > > > details are required, please don't hesitate to ask :) > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "nhusers" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]> > > <nhusers%[email protected]<nhusers%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > Fabio Maulo- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "nhusers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > > -- > Fabio Maulo- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
