> Anthony T., I am just curious, is there a technical reason why you may > not want to the change fields to properties? I understand that for > rare cases (e.g. high frequency loops), a field may offer a > performance benefit. However for 99% of cases, most developers prefer > properties. For items without default values, declaring a property or > a field (in.NET 3.x) requires virtually the same effort.
I would like to persist objects of a class that is defined in a 3rd party library, and that has a public int field that serves as a naturally unique Id. In other words, I'm using the class as is and don't have the capacity to modify it directly. Obviously I'm using virtual properties for persistent classes that I've defined myself. Thanks for clarifying that FluentNHibernate expects to deal with PropertyInfo. I'll likely build an xml mapping for the 3rd party class in question and Fluent everywhere else. --anthony --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fluent NHibernate" group. To post to this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fluent-nhibernate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
