Great, thanks
On Apr 6, 4:00 am, Hudson Akridge <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
