Yes, you are correct, it would make sense to do it that way. I'll look into it and see what we can come up with. :)
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, stevewillcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I just moved to Fluent NHibernate on one of my projects after using > standard NHibernate xml configuration for a while and it's great so > far. One minor problem that I have is that many of the collections in > my domain model implement ISet<T> as a protected field. This field is > then normally exposed as an IEnumerable<T> to allow clients read only > access to the set, and add / remove access is provided via methods on > the class. Of course this works fine with Access.AsCamelCaseField > (Prefix.Underscore) in a convention or in the mapping. The 'problem' > is that I also have to specify .AsSet(). The collection defaults to a > bag in this instance - presumably this is looking at the IEnumerable > public member and is using a bag because of that. Do you think this > should look at the field in this case? I realise this is a minor > problem overall, and there are a couple of open issues (157, 158) that > will allow the .AsSet() to be specified in the convention, so then it > really stops being a problem for me, but it seems to make sense that > where the access is specified as a field that the collection type > should be based on the field not the property. > > Anyway, keep up the good work! :) > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fluent NHibernate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fluent-nhibernate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
