Ricardo,
It does exactly what you think it does (map a property that doesn't exist in
the domain for query purposes).
It's just not supported in mapping by code,
Diego
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 08:04, Ricardo Peres <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
