Hi, I'm probably being redundant but these are the tickets that I created regarding this:
http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2092 <http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2092>http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2093 <http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2093>http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2094 <http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2094>http://216.121.112.228/browse/NH-2102 2092 and 2093 contains proposed fixes. 2102 is the breaking change that I believe you are looking for (one-to-one relations generates field intercepting proxies). Thanks, Johannes On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. > > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:33 AM, John Davidson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Is this the thread you are looking for. Johannes notes 2 failing tests at >> the bottom f the first message. >> >> https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/Gustafsson/126a10247f94c29e >> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/Gustafsson/126a10247f94c29e>John >> Davidson >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> mmmm... I don't think so.. >>> Even if Johannes Gustafsson have used another thread to send the list I >>> was looking for there are some open issues related to lazy-properties. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> They were reported on the JIRA, IIRC, and fixed. >>>> Can't remember issue numbers >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> IIRC there was two main issues (one breaking change), related to the >>>>> implementation if lazy-property, reported in JIRA. >>>>> >>>>> Can you help me to find it ? >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I hope the reporter is reading this mail. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Fabio Maulo >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fabio Maulo >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
