Fabio, I understand. But what is Accessor.None for? Thanks,
RP On Jul 10, 2:33 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
