i've considered all that have been said before asking, this is what i know:
lazy loading - i found that in WCF / service like context, where everything is percall, and that i would like to minimize state as possible as i can, i want to be able to have fine granularity over lazy loading or no lazy loading at all. this is because i would like to know and decide where my objects are materialized and i want to constrain that to a certain layer. two repositories, or cross repository transaction - thats true, i agree the session should be exposed in order to wrap transaction over them why would repository know there is a concept of a session - maybe only the repository should know, and if someone wants to impl. a new one, he has the interface. so on the contrary - why should the *application* know that there is a concept of a session? On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM, epitka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ask yourself, why would your Repository even have to know that there > is a concept of session? > > On Jul 8, 9:21 am, "Dotan N." <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I remember reading a post from Ayende that stated that if he sees code > where > > someone opened session inside each persister method, he doesn't know how > to > > use NH. > > So after implementing various method to manage Session myself, and i've > > steered clear of what Ayende recommended not to do, i've now exposed my > self > > to linq2sql and > > i couldn't see any special considerations to handle its form of session > > there. > > > > So what is wrong with opening session in repository? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
