On Jan 20, 3:57 pm, Brian Kendig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 3:52 pm, Hudson Akridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm going to find a way to sticky Jame's post > > here:http://blog.jagregory.com/2009/01/27/i-think-you-mean-a-many-to-one-sir/ > > > <http://blog.jagregory.com/2009/01/27/i-think-you-mean-a-many-to-one-sir/>Google > > Groups really needs stickies ;) > > (Read that article please) > > Thank you for the link. I read that article earlier, but I don't > believe it applies to my situation.
Okay - before you answer, I gave the article a re-read, and I understand what it's trying to say. I thought its point was "you think your relationship is one-to-one, but it's really one-to-many". I see now that its point is "you're trying to set up one-to-one, but you're accidentally setting up one-to-many". >From the "One-to-one" section of that article I see how it says I should be setting up this relationship; but I don't understand how to represent that in Fluent NHibernate. I'm still up against the problem that when one object tries to create another, it's not saving that object.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fluent NHibernate" 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/fluent-nhibernate?hl=en.
