Yeah, I can see that's the reason for the object to be saved. My point, though is: shouldn't the fact that the middle object is immutable prevent the last object from getting saved when using a one-to-one? This seems to be the behavior with sets that belong to the middle object.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
