eh?
2010/2/18 Diego Mijelshon
> Beat you to it by 12 minutes. And I'm beggining to use your style, too.
> I'm worried :-)
>
>Diego
>
>
> 2010/2/17 Fabio Maulo
>
>> access="readonly"
>>
>> 2010/2/17 Alex McMahon
>>
>> Fabio,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply... I don't quite understand what you
Not sure about FNH, but using hbm mappings you don't need a setter if you
declare a property with access="readonly".
NH will keep track of the DB value, do dirty checks with it and issue the
appropriate updates to the DB.
Diego
P.S. I'm writing this offline, sorry if somebody already answered
Beat you to it by 12 minutes. And I'm beggining to use your style, too.
I'm worried :-)
Diego
2010/2/17 Fabio Maulo
> access="readonly"
>
> 2010/2/17 Alex McMahon
>
> Fabio,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply... I don't quite understand what you mean... I
>> think you're saying "how can NH know t
You have another option if FNH does not support access="readonly".
Ask the feature to FNH team ;)
2010/2/18 Robert Rudduck
> You could set the access to use a private field and not put a setter on the
> property. ReadOnly means that any update wont be written out, but it still
> requires a sette
You could set the access to use a private field and not put a setter on the
property. ReadOnly means that any update wont be written out, but it still
requires a setter of some sort so NHibernate can initialize it.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Alex McMahon wrote:
> Intereting... I know this
Intereting... I know this is sort of the wrong place to ask, but how
do I do this in Fluent NH? I've tried .ReadOnly() but I then get an
error message about there not being a setter... I've also tried.
Access. but there doesn't seem to be one called ReadOnly...
any ideas?
On Feb 17, 11:29 pm, Fabi
access="readonly"
2010/2/17 Alex McMahon
> Fabio,
>
> Thanks for your reply... I don't quite understand what you mean... I
> think you're saying "how can NH know that it needs to put something in
> the DB if you don't tell it to". I see what you're saying
> (particularly as it's not just a defau
access="readonly"
Diego
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:50, Alex McMahon wrote:
> Fabio,
>
> Thanks for your reply... I don't quite understand what you mean... I
> think you're saying "how can NH know that it needs to put something in
> the DB if you don't tell it to". I see what you're saying
>
Fabio,
Thanks for your reply... I don't quite understand what you mean... I
think you're saying "how can NH know that it needs to put something in
the DB if you don't tell it to". I see what you're saying
(particularly as it's not just a default canned value that needs to go
in). I guess what I wa
Robert,
Thanks, yes this is one solution I've arrived at, I've got a protected
property that I map for NH that is just a getter.
ClassB:
ClassA A;
protected virtual long ClassCId{
get{
return A.ClassC.Id
}set{ }
}
I just thought I'd see if there was a better way someone could suggest
On Feb 17,
10 matches
Mail list logo
