I posted a related question on SO: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6114869/why-does-nhibernate-require-protected-internal-visibility-on-auto-properties. Is there something I am missing? Why is the "internal" attribute called for?
Thank you! -Michael On May 5, 6:35 am, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.comhttp://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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
