Again, I know I should be using a method to maintain the relationship. That's not the point of my question though.
Thanks, A On Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:22:42 AM UTC+2, Andrewz wrote: > > > I don't understand what you are talking about. > Can you please be more specific instead of citing Meyers? > > Do you say bi-directional is a bad design? What are you saying exactly? > > The code example I gave was only for the sake of the example. It's not a > real life example. > I made a mockup app to learn more how nHibernate works. > > Thanks, > A > > On Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:52:27 AM UTC+2, TheCPUWizard wrote: >> >> I sent the message below privately since it was not directly related to >> the nHibernate issue…but am now including it as a public response since it >> has been mentioned again on the public thread…. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TheCPUWizard [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:47 AM >> To: 'Andrewz' >> Cc: 'Gunnar Liljas' >> Subject: RE: [nhusers] questions about sql logging and the Inverse in a >> one to many relationship >> >> >> >> Andrew, >> >> >> >> As Gunner pointed out, it allows for ambiguous data (which is being kind, >> I would use a harsher term). Twenty years ago, Scott Meyers made a great >> statement: "Write software that is easy to use correctly, and difficult to >> use incorrectly". A design which requires multiple steps (one of which >> could be accidently left out) fails the second part of this. It would be a >> much better design if the act of performing EITHER of the operations >> automatically performed the other. >> >> >> >> This may seem like a trivial case, but over the years, I have >> consistently found that when there is one such design element, there are >> almost invariably others of similar (or worse) nature. Over the lifecycle >> of the product, the net effect can be quite costly. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Andrewz >> *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 5:17 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [nhusers] questions about sql logging and the Inverse in >> a one to many relationship >> >> >> >> Gunnar, >> >> >> >> I know that I should use a method to maintain the relationship. >> >> That's not the point of my question. >> >> And TheCPUWizard said something else, that it's a bad design which I do >> not understand why he says that. >> >> >> >> In my post, I have specific questions regarding specific things I do not >> understand. >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 28, 2012 5:14:17 PM UTC+2, Gunnar Liljas wrote: >> >> It's an *inconvenient* design, in that it requires two steps, and >> allows for ambiguous data. >> >> One small thing you can to is to create a group.AddUser method, which >> both adds the user and sets its group. >> >> The next step would be to not expose group.Users as a collection (map >> it to a backing field instead and just expose the property as an >> IEnumerable<User>), so that its impossible to use Users.Add directly. >> >> /G >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "nhusers" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nhusers/-/xVIA8QVCVQgJ. >> 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. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nhusers/-/aWvOYLWqaIsJ. 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.
