Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

lol, it certainly isn't OK, I'll look into it. thanks Krzysztof Fabio Maulo pisze: > Ah... > 4) a remove an existing Pet (mean remove only the association, the > animal stay alive). > > The life of an persistent-layer's developer is not so easy ;) > > 2009/5/12 Fabio Maulo mailto:fabioma...@gm

Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

Ah...4) a remove an existing Pet (mean remove only the association, the animal stay alive). The life of an persistent-layer's developer is not so easy ;) 2009/5/12 Fabio Maulo > 2009/5/12 Krzysztof Kozmic > >> Well, as I said - I'm quite new here, so I may be discovering things, >> that are o

Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

2009/5/12 Krzysztof Kozmic > Well, as I said - I'm quite new here, so I may be discovering things, > that are obvious for the experienced ones of you :) > > Thanks Roger for your explanation. I know that having the two-way inverse > association would workaround the issue, but there are still sit

RE: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

Well, as I said - I'm quite new here, so I may be discovering things, that are obvious for the experienced ones of you :) Thanks Roger for your explanation. I know that having the two-way inverse association would workaround the issue, but there are still situations where it's not welcome to i

RE: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

ps.com Subject: Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update? Thanks guys for the links, I've read them carefully. However I'm still not convinced when it comes to the additional update. I see no reason why what it does cant be performed in the insert in the first place. As in the Roger's

Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

Thanks guys for the links, I've read them carefully. However I'm still not convinced when it comes to the additional update. I see no reason why what it does cant be performed in the insert in the first place. As in the Roger's link - it may even be reasonable to put a not-null="true" on the asso

Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

2009/5/11 Roger Kratz > > > http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~aps/syllabi/2004_2005/issws/h03/hibernate.html#one_to_many_unidir Sure that part of H3 doc is more clear of our http://nhforge.org/doc/nh/en/index.html#collections-bidirectional We should update our documentation in some moment. Thanks Roge

SV: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update? I *don't* want to have bidirectional ref. I want my model just like it is now. And still, it's besides the point which is - why is NHibernate doing two rountrips to the DB for something it could (or could it?) do in one. Krzysztof R

Re: SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

I *don't* want to have bidirectional ref. I want my model just like it is now. And still, it's besides the point which is - why is NHibernate doing two rountrips to the DB for something it could (or could it?) do in one. Krzysztof Roger Kratz pisze: > Have a bidirectional ref and mark the coll

SV: [nhusers] Superfluous update?

Have a bidirectional ref and mark the collection with inverse=true. Från: nhusers@googlegroups.com [nhus...@googlegroups.com] för Krzysztof Koźmic [krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com] Skickat: den 11 maj 2009 21:52 Till: nhusers@googlegroups.com Ämne: [nhusers] S