ContactInfo ci = employee.getContactInfo(); ci.setXXX(...); pm.close(); think the way the references are handled is different, i think all the objects are cached so that might have something to do with it.
yeah i am no expert, there maybe a better solution. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Nick Wiedenbrueck < [email protected]> wrote: > Here is what I'm doing: > > employee.setContactInfor(new ContactInfo(...)) > // in another request > employee.setContactInfor(new ContactInfo(...)) > // in yet another request, this would give me the first ContactInfo > employee.getContactInfo() > > > > is the existing child object null in the parent? > What do you mean by that? > > > and do you have the mappedBy property set in the parents annotation? > No, it's uni-directional, but would that make a difference? And I'm > worried, that there's no reference to the child on the owning side. > > > otherwise try modifying the child object that you get from the parent? > I could try that. > > > Still, if anything of the above would work, I'd still expect a one-to- > one relationship to work in a different way. > > Thanks a lot. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" 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/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
