On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Storing just the base-most class would solve some (speed) issues, but
> others will remain - for each Class u'll have to do
> 1 get mapper for the Class
> 2 find the Base - the base-most mapper - or first concrete one
> towards root
> 3
On Monday 16 July 2007 18:21:42 Michael Bayer wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 10:45 AM, svilen wrote:
> > i think it is not a problem to store as many keys as there are
> > identical levels in polymorphism/inheritance as long as this is
> > synchronized with type of inheritance.
> > i.e. joined-table
On Jul 16, 2007, at 10:45 AM, svilen wrote:
>
> i think it is not a problem to store as many keys as there are
> identical levels in polymorphism/inheritance as long as this is
> synchronized with type of inheritance.
> i.e. joined-table inheritance chains (and single table maybe) are ok
> as is
On Monday 16 July 2007 17:08:08 Michael Bayer wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Yves-Eric wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation! The root of the issue is now very
> > clear. But are you saying that this is intended behavior? Was I
> > wrong in trying to use the session as an object cache?
>
>
On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Yves-Eric wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation! The root of the issue is now very clear.
> But are you saying that this is intended behavior? Was I wrong in
> trying to use the session as an object cache?
this is why im extremely hesitant to call the session a "cac
On Monday 16 July 2007 09:59:41 Yves-Eric wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation! The root of the issue is now very
> clear. But are you saying that this is intended behavior? Was I
> wrong in trying to use the session as an object cache?
>
> Now onto a possible solution or workaround... Please forgi
Thanks for the explanation! The root of the issue is now very clear.
But are you saying that this is intended behavior? Was I wrong in
trying to use the session as an object cache?
Now onto a possible solution or workaround... Please forgive me if the
following does not make sense, but would it b
the "non polymorphic" search is against the Person mapper; it
recieves id "1" and looks in the identity map for (Person, (1,)) and
locates the existing object immediately. For id 2, it also looks in
the map for (Person, (2,)), and finds nothing; it must issue a query
which returns the fa
