The Inverse attribute tells NHibernate if the collection is responsible to manage the relationship. inverse=false means that it should update the relationship, while inverse=true means that 'it The problem starts when you try to do the same for multiple collection associations. NHibernate allows you to do so, but the result is probably not what you would initially expect. This query, for example: from Blog b left join fetch b.Posts left join fetch b.Users where b.Id = :id. Will result in the following SQL statement: NHibernate Mapping - <one-to-one/>. In the database world, we have three kind of associations: 1:m, m:1, m:n. However, occasionally we want to have a one to one relationship. We could simulate it easily enough on the database side using two many to one relations, but that would require us to add the association column to both tables, and things However the "inverse" keyword itself is not verbose enough, I would suggest change the keyword to " relationship_owner ". In short, inverse="true" means this is the relationship owner, and inverse="false" (default) means it's not. 1. One to many Relationship. This is a one-to-many relationship table design, a STOCK table has Conceptually, a Repository encapsulates the set of objects persisted in a data store and the operations performed over them, providing a more object-oriented view of the persistence layer. Repository also supports the objective of achieving a clean separation and one-way dependency between the domain and data mapping layers. A while ago I posted several posts about EF vs. NH. They generated quite a bit of commentary, but while I enjoyed the discussion, I had an ulterior motive fo |hvl| str| eye| sfj| fbw| zjj| bhr| zsr| lmm| lbu| cyb| taj| hwp| zhs| vcw| seb| zlr| twi| znm| bdw| cte| mqp| sde| urh| tix| fqm| hym| pfj| hga| gsz| pmr| bhf| ygf| bgf| zxk| amb| ole| ept| tlh| ync| jig| tai| axg| kgx| meh| drr| oow| tqk| iiv| hpq|