Steve, do you know what the default behavior for EF "code-first" is when a
many-to-one property is not virtual?
It loads as null and lazy load doesn't work.
I'll take NH's fail-early, simple restrictions any time.
Diego
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
