> But can you explain (or point me to an explanation) - why is there a > requirement to have a setter for all properties? > > I've done most of my NH work with v2.1.2 (and FNH 1.0), and my entity > classes have dozens of "get-only" properties (mainly returning > calculated values, or simplified access to private members). But now > that's all broken with NH 3.2.
You shouldn't need setters for *all* properties, only for the ones which are mapped. Creating JIRA issues won't change anything since this is the new (by design) behaviour of NHibernate (there was already a lengthy discussion on the development list about this). As I've already said, it is very easy to get the old behaviour. Just inject you own DynProxyTypeValidator. On Feb 22, 5:02 pm, Tom Bushell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 21, 2:17 am, cremor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This was done because of lazy properties. Previously if you had a lazy > > property with private set, you would only get a error in the log which > > was very easy to miss. Now the validator complains about it so you > > can't miss it. > > I agree - that's better than a silent failure. > > But can you explain (or point me to an explanation) - why is there a > requirement to have a setter for all properties? > > I've done most of my NH work with v2.1.2 (and FNH 1.0), and my entity > classes have dozens of "get-only" properties (mainly returning > calculated values, or simplified access to private members). But now > that's all broken with NH 3.2. > > This is a pretty common pattern in OO designs - I'd think this would > be a breaking change for a lot of people. > > -Tom Bushell -- 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.
