1832 [Orion Launcher] INFO
impl.SessionFactoryImpl - Use outer join fetching: false2072 [Orion
Launcher] INFO impl.SessionFactoryImpl - Use scrollable result sets:
true3119 [Orion Launcher] INFO impl.SessionFactoryObjectFactory - no
JDNI name configured3120 [Orion Launcher] INFO impl.Sess
> I agree 100%, and I'm puzzled by this.
> I posted about that in the Forum on SF,
> asking the same questions.
Ok... it's strange... Hibernate uses several metatags to do this.
Defaults SUCK big time if you ask me. And it also uses the same function
for both (getFieldScope). I attached fixed Basi
I agree 100%, and I'm puzzled by this.
I posted about that in the Forum on SF,
asking the same questions.
Cf.
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=802051&forum_id=128638
No answers yetam I missing something here?
Thanks,
Otis
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Aapo Laakkonen
([EMAIL P
Clarify my question here:
suppose I have two table
create table A (
id integer primary key
);
create table B (
id integer primary key,
idA integer not null,
constraint FK_B_TO_A foreign key (idA) references A
(id) on delete cascade
);
Here suppose
Ok, I see that the BasicRenderer seems to want some parameter and it
defaults to private, which is insane, I think (should default to
public).
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something
Why does CodeGenerator in Hibernate2 generate "private" getters and
setters?
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_
I added some debug parameters, and you're right that the lookup happens each
time. It sounds to me like the HibernateSession class could be enhanced to
allow only one lookup. Here is a first stab at it:
public class HibernateSession {
//~ Static fields/initializers
==
> I'm wondering if there's any problem with the
> following modifications to Jeff's Filter.
Yes there is. More new InitialContext() lookups. This was one thing that
Jeff tried to avoid. But yes your approach should work fine, but it
causes a little more overhead (Or have you done some modification
I have made progress saving my collections (thanks to Gavin), and I am
down to my last bug, I think. Here is what is happening:
1) I create an new parent class
2) I create a new child class
3) I add the child record to the parent class's set
4) I save the parent record
At this point hibernate fir
suppose I have two table
create table A (
id integer primary key
);
create table B (
id integer primary key,
idA integer not null,
constraint FK_B_TO_A foreign key (idA) references A
(id) on delete cascade
);
Here suppose A to B is a one-to-many asso
I'm wondering if there's any problem with the following modifications to
Jeff's Filter. The code below uses the HibernateSession object to obtain a
session in a Filter. Seems to work pretty well for me. If there are any
glaring problems, please let me know. If there aren't any issues with using
Just expecially for Max I have done some back-breaking coding (not really,
it was easy as pie) tonight and implemented the behavior he requested,
with respect to collections passed to update(). Collections now carry a
snapshot around with them so that we can update individual rows.
I had intended
Raible, Matt wrote:
You can remedy this problem with MySQL by adding autoReconnect=true in your
JDBC URL. For instance:
jdbc:mysql://localhost/mydatabase?autoReconnect=true
thanks a lot for your suggestion
I will try, and let you know if it does work :))
Bye bye
Enrico
I've also heard that ad
You can remedy this problem with MySQL by adding autoReconnect=true in your
JDBC URL. For instance:
jdbc:mysql://localhost/mydatabase?autoReconnect=true
I've also heard that adding a validationQuery parameter will have a similar
effect (at least with Oracle):
validationQuer
Hi everybody,
I'm a newbye in using hibernate, so I beg you pardon in the question is
dummy :).
I'm using tomcat4 with mysql, and, of course, hibernate. I open and
close the hibernate session with a filter, using a modified version of
the filter published on the mailing list a couple of weeks ag
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:17:54 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> So do you want to just do a little experiment to find out
> which version(s) support for
> , because I forget.
the 1.1 DTD doesn't allow this, and even if i force it in there, it's
apprently ignored... i'm using 1.2.3 (btw, the fix
Ummm .. this is embarrassing. This is *certainly* already
implemented in Hibernate2. I'm not sure if it found its way
into 1.2.3. And I can't find any mention of it in the changelog!
So do you want to just do a little experiment to find out
which version(s) support for
, because I forget.
I *kn
hi,
apparently is not allowed for a in a
collection, only for plain s... is there a special reason? how
hard it is to implement this?
thx,
viktor
--
http://fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
---
This SF.NET
Gavin,
Have you had the time to take a loko at the patch for too-long column
aliases yet
(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=672865&group_id=40712&atid=428710)?
I noticed that you just released 1.2.3...
-Mark
---
Thi
Either Set or bag could be faster, depending upon the situation. Neither
require an column. Hibernate bags are actually java.util.Lists
because the java collections framework has no Bag.
Ignore the interface A.
jiesheng zhang
> 1. add the child element to the children set.
> 2. save the child explicitly by calling
> Session.save(child).
> Is it right?
If you have enabled cascades, you can skip (2).
> By specifying "readonly", in the code I have to
> remember which set is readonly and I have to handle it
> differently
Suppose we have a interface A, and an implemenation
class A_Impl.
In this case, there is no discriminator column and
discrimator value. Can I use
...
to map this?
Or I have to use
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
---
This SF.NET email is sp
I have a collection of thing. I do not care whether
there is duplication or not. I can use Set to prohibit
duplication. I can also use list and bag.
If I use Set rather than list/bag, I think the
performance is not so good as it is for list/bag,
since set has to limit duplication.
I noticed that
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You need to learn about the mysteries of the
> unsaved-value
> attribute :)
>
> Hibernate looks at the id value to determine if an
> object
> discovered by cascade is "new" or not. So, if you
> have an
> object with a Long identifier, set
> unsaved-value="null".
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Here the children set in the Parent object is
> >readonly. Does it mean any modification to any
> "Child
> >element" in the Children set will not be persisted
> to
> >database( an violation of usual persistence by
> >reachability)? In
>
> No, it is nothing to do
>Here the children set in the Parent object is
>readonly. Does it mean any modification to any "Child
>element" in the Children set will not be persisted to
>database( an violation of usual persistence by
>reachability)? In
No, it is nothing to do with cascades.
>this sense, the "readonly" appli
You need to learn about the mysteries of the unsaved-value
attribute :)
Hibernate looks at the id value to determine if an object
discovered by cascade is "new" or not. So, if you have an
object with a Long identifier, set unsaved-value="null".
Note that another approach is to save() the Item ex
Easy question, I think.
I am trying something like this:
Product p = new Product();
p.setName("blah");
ProductLineItem item = new ProductLineItem();
item.setName("blah line item");
// Add a line item to the product
p.addLineItem(item);
Session.save(p);
.and it is inserting the Product, and
29 matches
Mail list logo
