I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean, but that response
was you cackling at a very well thought out and highly reasonable
request, I find that fairly disrespectful. Thora is correct: these are
the sort of things that would be required by bi-temporal databases as
well. Which believe it or not... DO exist.

EF4 is not an option in my case because I will not be using MSSQL.

Thank you for your valuable input Thora.

On Mar 18, 7:37 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> ah!ah!ah!
>
> 2010/3/18 thora68 <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> > I have to agree with snicker, that it should be possible to apply
> > filters on many-to-one, and that the integrity of the model should be
> > the responsibility of the developer. I have no problem with the
> > framework making it hard to shoot yourself in the foot by making these
> > filters "hard" to turn on, but at least it should be possible.
>
> > We are investigating using nhibernate to implement (map) a bi-temporal
> > database. Our initial thoughts is to set up relationships using
> > business (or surrogate) keys, and not use PK-FK relationships. This
> > means accepting a few pains: RDBMS cannot enforce referential
> > integrity (not to speak of temporal ref-integrity), so this must
> > happen in sprocs/triggers, It also means using "property-ref" in
> > mappings.
>
> > None of these seem to be considered "kosher" by the community. However
> > the tradeoff we must consider is accepting these "smells" in return
> > for having the goodies of nhibernate in a bi-temporal database
> > setting, versus building the app without an ORM (or even worse attempt
> > to build ORM type functionality ourselves).  PS. It seems that snicker
> > has done the exact same analysis and wish to map a temporal database
> > using nhibernate.
>
> > Again, IMHO the developer/architect must be allowed to make those
> > decisions himself, not the framework.
>
> > An alternative of course is to look to EF4 (not sure what the story is
> > there), or to branch off nibernate and either attempt to build support
> > for this ourselves (most likely we would need to hire/sponsor an NH
> > expert since messing with the NH internals will bring us firmly
> > outside our comfort zone).
>
> > --
> > Thor A. Johansen
> > R&D Manager
> > Oppad AS
>
> > On 18 Mar, 18:51, snicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Why do I *need* an explicit join? If a filter can be applied to a one-
> > > to-many collection, why cannot the same functionality be available for
> > > a many-to-one??
>
> > > I can lazily load a collection with a filter, why will NHibernate
> > > *NOT* let me do this with a many-to-one? I have heard you say that
> > > this does not guarantee the integrity of the model. It is the
> > > responsibility of the user to ensure that *their* explicit
> > > configuration ensures the integrity of the model. I have several many-
> > > to-one fields on each of my entities that require this filter.. I
> > > cannot join on all of them simultaneously when loading the entity.
>
> > > Currently I have to resort to a hack such as this to get the desired
> > > functionality:
>
> > > public virtual MyClass ReferencedManyToOneObject {
> > >    get { ListHack.Count > 0 ? ListHack[0] : null; }
> > >    set { ListHack[0] = value; }}
>
> > > public virtual IList<MyClass> ListHack { get; set; }
>
> > > And then I map ListHack as a many-to-one with the filter. THIS GETS MY
> > > DESIRED RESULTS! But as you can see it is nothing more than a
> > > completely dirty filthy hack and it makes me incredibly uncomfortable.
> > > I simply wish to be able to apply a filter to many-to-one
> > > relationships JUST as one can with one-to-many.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "nhusers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
>
> --
> Fabio Maulo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en.

Reply via email to