Re: [Hibernate] Fetch profiles

2006-06-11 Thread Christian Bauer
On May 28, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > And I guess you really want it disjunct from the mapping and not > "just" where the assocation is already defined ? > > > ... > >... > > > > > ... > > > > > Where the name could actually be comma seperat

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch profiles

2006-05-28 Thread Max Rydahl Andersen
and if that is what it takes, then let that be it ;) /max Exactly. -Original Message- From: Max Andersen And I guess you really want it disjunct from the mapping and not "just" where the assocation is already defined ? -- -- Max Rydahl Andersen callto://max.rydahl.andersen Hib

RE: [Hibernate] Fetch profiles

2006-05-28 Thread Gavin King
Exactly. -Original Message- From: Max Andersen > And I guess you really want it disjunct from the mapping and not "just" > where the assocation is already defined ? --- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost a

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch profiles

2006-05-28 Thread Max Rydahl Andersen
It occurred to me today that you could avoid my objection just by defining the fetch profile in its own section of the XML, instead of in the association mappings. eg. And I guess you really want it disjunct from the mapping and not "just" where the assocation is already def

RE: [Fwd: RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch]

2006-03-13 Thread dchannon
not looked at Java6 to see if validation of annotations will help in this area. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Bernard Sent: Monday, 13 March 2006 7:32 PM Cc: Hibernate development Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch] Hi, I

Re: [Fwd: RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch]

2006-03-13 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
Hi, I don't fully understand you. My plan was to add at least org.hibernate.annotations.Lazy and org.hibernate.annotations.Fetch They will keep the standard/extension separation clean. Emmanuel Bernard wrote: Original Message Subject: RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch

[Fwd: RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch]

2006-03-13 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
Original Message Subject:RE: [Hibernate] @Fetch Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:12:44 +1000 From: dchannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Emmanuel Bernard' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I feel its best not to confuse what is within the standard and what i

Re: [Hibernate] @Fetch

2006-03-12 Thread Christian Bauer
On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:39 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: or at least have very good error messages thrown from the annotation builder. That should be OK, we never know when other @Fetch options might become available for collections, etc. --

Re: [Hibernate] @Fetch

2006-03-12 Thread Max Rydahl Andersen
hmm ... without any other means of "annotation validation" having 2 seperate annotations sounds like the only way out. Otherwise you get very dependent on having Hibernate/EJB3 aware annotations IDE's; or at least have very good error messages thrown from the annotation builder. /max Actually

Re: [Hibernate] @Fetch

2006-03-12 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
Actually @Lazy has the same issue TRUE, FALSE, PROXY, NO-PROXY, EXTRA @Fetch SELECT, JOIN, SUBSELECT Emmanuel Bernard wrote: I'll add a @Fetch annotation Some FetchType are available on collections only, some on single association only. Do you think I should have 2 different @Fetch annotations

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-25 Thread Gavin King
Emmanuel Bernard wrote: (1) make lazy default to true on both and mapping elements; if a class cannot be proxied, laziness is transparently disabled; make it clear that we intend laziness to be used 99% of the time Most controversial part but I'm +1 from a pragmatic perspective. Howeve

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-15 Thread Christian Bauer
* The default should be fetch="select" for collections, what should the default be for to-one associations? I suppose that purely for backward compatibility purposes we need fetch="auto|join|select", where auto is the default, and chooses "select" for a lazy-enabled class. Keep the "auto" and t

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-13 Thread Gavin King
If you require immediate answers, you need commercial support: http://hibernate.org/SupportTraining/CommercialSupportAndTrainingForHibernate Michael Mehrle wrote: I did - and nobody is replying! Can someone just answer my question? --- This SF.N

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-13 Thread Michael Mehrle
I did - and nobody is replying! Can someone just answer my question? - Original Message - From: "Emmanuel Bernard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gavin King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:44 PM Subject:

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-12 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
Gavin King wrote: In my private chats with people, it seems we all agree that currently, Hibernate2 association fetch strategy configuration is confusing and has nonsensible defaults. I've spent quite a lot of time thinking about how we could clean this up without breaking 2.x mapping documents to

Re: [Hibernate] Fetch strategy changes

2004-09-12 Thread Max Rydahl Andersen
Hi! (1) make lazy default to true on both and mapping elements; if a class cannot be proxied, laziness is transparently disabled; make it clear that we intend laziness to be used 99% of the time +1 Hm - i can't remember, does lazy=true on a non-proxyable class fail today ? (with a error