well... give me something to override private members on the fly (without use IL rewrite) and I'll remove that restriction ;)
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > lol -- there is no doubt in my mind at all that our restrictions are almost > guaranteed to be the least invasive of all of the options, but I'd *still* > like to ensure that we try to measure ourselves by something more rigorous > than "we're not as bad as MS" :D > > > Steve Bohlen > [email protected] > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com > http://twitter.com/sbohlen > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
