My choice? Castle's DynamicProxy2? Why? It's stable for a long time, had a lot of work spent in optimizations. It's second generation framework and it's seems to be the industry standard (for dynamic proxy generation).
I wouldn't go with Post Sharp because, afaik, It requires a compile time tweaks, build hooks. And I don't like this kind approach, but can recognize that someday, in some situation It might by useful, so an extension point is nice. About the dialect: This is a good question. Why not to put it as default? In the last three years, I delivered only two projects that weren't backended by mssql. And btw, be ready to answer the same questions, over a million of times, no matter how well documented it will be: "HEELPP!!!!!! PROXY GENERATOR FACTORY NOT FOUND!!!!!" or "URGENT!!!!! DEADLINE TOMORROW!!!! MY PROXIES AREN'T BEHAVING AS EXPECTED!!!!" Cheers, Henry Conceição On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Fabio Maulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/11/12 Henry Conceição <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I think that is the point that Hammet's was trying to explain. Your >> IoC framework has nothing related with the NHibernate's proxy >> generator. So if the rationale for the change it this, it's wrong or >> misleaded. An acceptable rationale is that the users should have the >> ability to choose/change a ProxyGenerator of NHibernate, base on him >> preferences and needs. >> >> But as an user, I don't see any advantage in the proxygenerator >> becomes an _obrigatory_ config key. I've been using DynProxy for >> years, and I'm happy with it, and I'm don't want to change. I think >> that should be an default, and if someone want to change, fine, let >> him specify the new generator. > > I would like to know which is your preference, for default > ProxyFactoryFactory, and reasons because you a choosing it, instead the > others. > After that, I would like to know why we don't have a default for dialect > since we know that, at least, 80% of users are using NH with > MsSQL. > > Thanks. > Fabio Maulo >
