btw the note about the breaking change is in the releasenotes.txt since the beginning. ;)
-- Fabio Maulo El 04/05/2011, a las 17:18, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> escribió: You'll have to talk to Anders for that :) Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
