You have answered your question by yourself. 2009/11/17 Eduardo Scoz <[email protected]>
> Sorry, the only mutable object in my example is the "middle" one, User. The > right-side one (UserPreferences) is mutable as it needs to be updated from a > different part of the system. > > Thanks Fabio. > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: > >> and those object are mutable or not ? (I mean the "right" side of the >> one-to-one) >> >> 2009/11/17 Eduardo Scoz <[email protected]> >> >> Hi, >>> >>> I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature, so I thought it would be >>> worthy to post here. >>> >>> It seems that during a save operation on a tree that contains immutable >>> objects, even though those objects are not updated (correct behavior), >>> objects that have a one-to-one relationship to those ones get updated. >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> I have a object UserData, with a many-to-one to User with a one-to-one >>> UserPreferences. >>> User in this case is immutable and kept in read-only cache. >>> When I do a save on the UserData object, that object gets saved, and so >>> does UserPreferences. >>> >>> Is that the correct behavior? I would expect only UserData to be saved. >>> Sets that are part of User are not updated. >>> >>> Thanks guys, >>> >>> Eduardo Scoz >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> > > -- Fabio Maulo
