Hibernate version:3.1

Name and version of the database you are using:SQL 2000


Example:

Owner -> Cats -> Toys

Owner -> Cats: one-to-many

Cats -> Toys: many-to-many (via a view)

If I load an Owner and clear() its collection of cats, then flush, Hibernate tries to delete each cat’s collection of toys, and fails because the many-to-many is based on a view. I do not touch the toys collection at all. I have set optimistic lock to false, set mutable to false, set cascade to ‘none’ on that toys collection. Nothing seems to change this behavior. I don’t want Hibernate to attempt to modify anything in that many-to-many collection. Any ideas?

Thank you

why do you clear() the collection in the first place ?

This is a web-base system where the user is puttting in information via an html form. So, using this example, let's say the user enters an owner and multiple cats (in a single form submission). Then later, goes back to update (add/remove cats from the collection).
So, what I do is load the persisted object (this is an update) and copy in the new property values from the submitted form. For the collection, rather than trying to figure out which cats are new, which ones have been removed from the collection by the user, I'd rather just clear the old collection, and re-populate it with the new collection objects. So I issue a clear() on that cats collection, then populate it with new objects. So, in other words, for the collection items, it's turns into more of a delete/insert for those objects.
Does that make sense?

no not really ;) why do you want to map something that you don't want to be persistent ?

why don't you just query for the relavant data instead of mapping it as a collection ?

If you absolutly want to map this as a collection then copy the needed data in the setter to another collection which you then can use for you manipulation...but i would definitly go for the option of querying for the data instead of map it as a collection.

The collection items are persisted, they're just not persisted from that collection... the collection in question is basically a subset of another collection where they are persisted.



Because it's simpler (and more robust I think) to simply access a collection throughout my application than maintaining a bunch of queries everywhere. And I have other non-hibernate requirements to use that view as well.

Anyway, if you're telling me Hibernate doesn't want me to map collections that won't be persisted from that collection, then that's fine, I'll just try to stay away from doing that.

Thanks

well hibernate will stay away from it if you don't mess with the collection.

inverse=true might also help.

but otherwise map the persistent collection to something else and copy it over to the collection you want to manipulate.