Guys, First off, thanks for helping with the situation I brought up. Frans, I appreciate you taking the time to better explain my issue using more descriptive words & examples than I could have :) I thought my description, map file and classes were sufficient to show what I was attempting to accomplish, but it appears not and that seems to be the reason for the inactivity in the past. Had I known that, I would've tried to rephrase my question rather than just repeat it, thinking people were just ignoring it.
As you mentioned, I am trying to map a many to many relationship without wanting to specifically have a map & class for the intermediary table. All three tables (primary, intermediary, and associate) have a logical delete column that I want to respect. The problem arises when the associate record is logically deleted. The intermediary record is still present and is not logically deleted, so the collection returns a null object. As a user, I expected that it wouldn't return an object in that case. It feels weird to me to have to check for null objects in a .net collection. I would think they should be filtered out before returning the collection to the user. I would be happy if I could just get read-only access working, but if this type of use case isn't supported by NH, then I will go a different route. Thanks again, and let me know if I can further explain what I'm trying to accomplish Jim On Jul 25, 2:23 pm, Sergej Koščejev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24.7.2010 23:08, Jim Geurts wrote: > > > I don't mean to be rude, but you closed the bug. You asked me to post > > the issue to the list, which I did previously, multiple times... > > without reply. I created unit tests that reproduce this issue, yet > > still no reply from anyone. It seems like a common issue that people > > are going to run across. I'm just looking for either a description of > > how I'm mapping things wrong, or how to properly accomplish this type > > of situation... > > In your test case, author_book_map contains an entry with IsDeleted=0, > this is the reason why the Books collection contains one (null) element > when you load the author, even though the book itself is deleted. > > I'm not totally sure what the correct behavior here should be, whether > to return an empty collection as you want it, or not. > > Sergej -- 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.
