Errata

This mapping achieves the goals with which we started with illustrates how arbitrary
information can be attached to a collection of associations.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Yes, this slipped through the copy editing process! I expect I was trying to say something like: ?This mapping achieves the goals with which we started, and illustrates how arbitrary information can be attached to a collection of associations.?

Good catch, thanks.

I think I know what you mean, but I couldn't quite make sense of:
RE: lazy
"Because this can lead to unexpected crashes far away from the Hibernate-
specific code, you can turn it off in cases where the effort of making
sure anything you might need to use outweighs the potential cost of
loading more than you really need..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Ah, yes, there is some language missing. It should be something like this:

?Because this can lead to unexpected crashes far away from the Hibernate-specific code, you can turn it off. But then you need to make sure you explicitly load anything you might need before closing your Hibernate transaction. Sometimes the data is simple enough that you can simply load it all, because the cost of getting more than you need is small, but sometimes you need to think hard and code carefully.?

When discussing how Hibernate integrates with Spring.

Sentence: "The Stripes API provides a simple way to tolerate such implementation-specific exceptions by wrapping them in its own generalized data access exceptions."

Should be: "The Spring API..."

I'm reading the PDF version online at Safari so I don't have a page number.

(96): language change or minor formatting problem

Reads "This mapping achieves the goals with which we started 'with' illustrates...."
should be 'which illustrates'

Note from the Author or Editor:
This is completely correct; a comma might be nice too:

This mapping achieves the goals with which we started, which illustrates how arbitrary information can be attached to a collection of associations.

The "Figure 5-1. Models of the tables, concepts, and objects involved in representing album tracks" repeats the label ALBUM_TRACKS twice in the "Database Schema" section. ALBUM_TRACKS once above the schema for the table which stores the collection and a second time over the tracks table. The second time I believe it should have been just TRACKS.

Not really an error, but "Example 5-1. Eagerly initializing the track artist associations" changes the key column name from TRACK_ID to TRACK for the TRACK_ARTISTS set. Earlier in the text it appears as TRACK_ID, but this is just a snippet and not a restatement of the Track class xml mapping.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Yes, sadly, the right-hand table should be labeled TRACK rather than ALBUM_TRACKS. That is how it was labeled in the version I checked in, but it got changed in production. Why does this figure get semantically mangled before press every time? I find it very frustrating!

Right hand Entity ALBUM_TRACKS should read "TRACK"

Note from the Author or Editor:
Yes it should. That's the way the figure was when I submitted it, but it got messed up somehow on the way to press, sadly.