You do not *need* a bidirectional, however life will sadly be a lot easier
with one. If you don't have a bi-directional, and you attempt to delete a
child, without also removing that child from the parent, then you will get a
cascade exception. Having the bi-directional in place means that your chi
Got it working, had the reference from child to parent once
implemented but had not the inverse(), so I added the reference back.
Now I have the reference without .inverse().. do I need it in any
case?
On 15 Sep., 17:21, griti wrote:
> Forgot to mention that the database is setting the IDs of
Forgot to mention that the database is setting the IDs of the objects,
maybe this is also a problem for nhibernate?
On 15 Sep., 17:13, griti wrote:
> Thanks for the input, now it's storing the fk as expected for Log ->
> LogEntry.
>
> For this case I don't need any reference back from the child.
Thanks for the input, now it's storing the fk as expected for Log ->
LogEntry.
For this case I don't need any reference back from the child.
When I remove .Inverse(), I get the following error:
[InvalidOperationException: Collection was modified; enumeration
operation may not execute.]
What I d
You have .Inverse() marked on all of your OTM collections, but do not have a
reference back from the child side to the parent in the mapping using a
References(). In that case, an inverse is not what you'd want to set up on
the OTM.
Although, if a bi-directional is what you're looking for, then you
