ong with fetch="join" lazy="true" if you want
flexibility.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2005 5:48 PM
To: Gavin King; Christian Bauer; hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] New laziness rules
Note that the association-l
On May 3, 2005, at 1:31 AM, Gavin King wrote:
There's nothing wrong with fetch="join" lazy="true" if you want
flexibility.
I hate explaining this already...
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and
n King; Christian Bauer; hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] New laziness rules
>> Note that the association-level lazy setting is now *completely
>> respected*. if I run a HQL query and some of the objects in the
result
>
>> set have non-lazy ass
Note that the association-level lazy setting is now *completely
respected*. if I run a HQL query and some of the objects in the result
set have non-lazy associations, those associations will be
*immediately fetched*.
This one I don't get why we want that ?
I actually saw it as a strength that you
OK, I ditched rule (2).
Now they are completely orthogonal.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian Bauer
Sent: Thursday, 28 April 2005 3:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] New laziness rules
On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Gavin King
On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Gavin King wrote:
Only rule (2) is suspect. We don’t need it, and I can get rid of it if
you guys like. I’ve added it because I think it might help reduce the
number of forum questions from people who wonder “why do I get lazy
fetching when fetch=join?”.
Not followin
