It is a restiction discussed here in dev-list when we have introduced the mapping for not visible members. The mapping-by-code is strongly typed even for dynamic-components and we can even implement strongly-typed-mapping for dynamic-entities. For no strongly-typed mapping the XML is still there and can be used in conjunction with mapping-by-code.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > I do agree that query-only properties should be supported in > mapping-by-code (they *are* useful) > However, this is an implementation limitation > (check PropertyContainerCustomizer). > It's currently not supported (wanna create a patch?), so you'll have to > either use XML for this, or create a member (it doesn't even have to be > public) so the mapper will accept it. > > Diego > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:35, Ricardo Peres <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, Julian! >> >> I noticed the property name, too, but I assumed that mapping by code >> would support all of NHibernate's functionalities; since we only have >> two methods for specifying a mapping property, and since we cannot use >> the one that takes an expression (because it doesn't exist), it leaves >> us with only the method that takes the property's name. >> So I guess it isn't supported. Now the question is: are query-only >> properties ever going to be supported, or is this just an arcane >> feature that no longer makes sense? And, by the way, what is >> Accessor.None for? >> >> Thanks! >> >> RP >> >> PS - I usually use the NHUsers mailing list, but sometimes I think >> NHibernate-Development is more appropriate, sorry if you don't think >> so. >> >> On 10 Jul, 04:55, Julian Maughan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I suspect the short answer is 'no, you can't do this'. >> > >> > There doesn't appear to be another overload of the Set method that would >> > allow a mapping where no class field/property exists.The name of the >> string >> > parameter - the one Fabio refers to - is >> 'notVisiblePropertyOrFieldName'. >> > You are passing it the value of "LastWeekOrders" which is not an actual >> > field/property on the class you are mapping - hence the >> MappingException. >> > >> > I personally like to keep query/filter semantics out of mappings. >> Queries >> > should be used for querying. >> > > -- Fabio Maulo
