That feels like (yet another) constraint on my object modeling dictated by my persistence choice (tail wags dog). There are already several of these w/NH adoption; I'd prefer not to introduce yet another one if we can avoid it.
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Ramon Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can't you just convert private to protected? > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM, cremor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh, lazy properties, right. I didn't think about that because I've >> never used them. >> >> Is there a way to just disable that lazy property check? Because I >> don't want to disable the whole proxy checking for sure. >> If not, would it be possible to change that code so it does the check >> for private accessors only if the property is really mapped as lazy >> property? >> >> On May 4, 3:54 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > yes if you don't want use lazy-properties. >> > You can disable the validator but then you have to know what will happen >> if >> > you use lazy-properties. >> > >> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:39 AM, cremor <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I just tried a build of the current trunk (coming from 3.2.0.Alpha2) >> > > and was quite surprised that nothing worked any more because >> > > NHibernate complained about many of my entities not being proxyable. >> > >> > > Example property: >> > > public virtual SomeEntity SomeEntity { get; private set; } >> > >> > > Seems like in r5718 the DynProxyTypeValidator was changed to also >> > > check non-public property accessors (line 57 from >> > > "property.GetAccessors(false)" to "property.GetAccessors(true)"). I >> > > see that it's needed to check protected/protected internal accessors >> > > (so the previous code wasn't checking everything), but shouldn't >> > > private accessors be allowed? >> > >> > -- >> > Fabio Maulo > > > > > -- > Ramon > >
