I quote Hibernate doc :

Nevertheless, I find the use of where+fetch really usefull for plenty of use cases !
But I may be misusing it...

My use case :
T1-->(*)T2-->(*)T3

I want to retreive one specific T3, with all its parents (All my relations must be lazy='true', and I can not use lazy fetching).

This works :


I get one T1, linked to one T2, linked to one T3 (one SQL request!)

Why should I try to avoid this way of doing ? Is there a better way to achieve the same result ?
A simple join should do it, but I won't get an object tree... And I want all objects to be linked, it is easier for the layer that uses the data.

Thanks !

This should rather be written:
I'd say

(Whoo ! thanks for the fast reply !)

I agree, but only for inverse=true for all collections

I really meant :
T1-->(*)T2-->(*)T3

not
T1<-->(*)T2<-->(*)T3

When you execute

you get a T3 and you can not navigate to T2

That why I wrote :


That's why I do not understand the documentation on this point

But I may still be missing something...
[/code]

I reply to myself, as I've done some more tests, and found that my latest reply is pure nonsens

Even with a bidirectional association I'm not able to navigate from T1 to T3, coz the framework triggers the lazy fetching for the non initialized T2 and T3

So, the conclusion is :
I must use an inverse=true relationship, and I must not use any where clause with a fetch join clause. So Micheal's answer is definitively the right to go.

inverse="true" has absolutely nothing to do with queries.

Furthermore, as per the documentation, you can never have FETCH JOINs for two collections in the same query.

finally, if you want to apply a where condition, you must use a separate join, not a FETCH JOIN