thanks a lot, that cleared some mist.
btw u can make a entry on the FAQ from this... e.g. "lifetimes and
usage patterns" - or similar.
> > The other rule inferred from above problem is
> > b) objects lifetime should be shorter than mappers (ORM); else
> > one needs to delete o._instance_key and
On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:59 AM, svilen wrote:
> more questions on the theme.
> What is the expected sequence / lifetime / pattern-of-usage for
> engine, metadata, mappers, and finally, my objects?
mappers need tables and therefore metadata, objects have mapped
properties and therefore mappers.
> That is, in my case, lifetime of objects is much longer that
> lifetime of all database-and-related stuff - and seems this is not
> expected pattern of usage.
more questions on the theme.
What is the expected sequence / lifetime / pattern-of-usage for
engine, metadata, mappers, and finally, my
i think i found something...
i am doing testing about these links and nodes.
For each testcase i have one constant set of nodes, and then trying
different scenarios with various combination of links.
Each scenario creates all database stuff a new - db, metadata,
mappers, session - and after te
On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:08 AM, svilen wrote:
>
> g'day
>
> i have Links, pointing to Nodes.
>
> Adding just Links to session + flush() works as expected - both Links
> and Nodes got saved.
>
> Doing session.close() although does not always detach all related
> objects, i.e. sometimes some Nodes s
