No, you've written a patch for it but it was never applied from as far as I
know.
At least, the issue is still open and by looking at the code I've seen
nothing handling it.
Also, I'm not quite sure to understand your comment from 06/Dec/03 09:09 AM.
about exceptions being thrown.
The improvement
Henri Tremblay wrote:
P.S.: Just to be annoying, according to the way I'm using components, I'll
find really useful to have HB-31 fixed instead of lazy components
implemented :-) (yeah, I know, it might not be really funny to fix it, even
with the available patch...)
Hum, I thought this one was
IMHO,
I've been doing a lot of mapping these days on a lot of classes and tables
from different teams on my project.
I've seen a lot of different mapping issues.
And I agree, I don't think you need to mess the code to put lazy components.
The only time I've been using components is in the case whe
Yeah, I'm inclined to not commit this stuff. I might add it as a patch.
But I'm not really very happy with how it turned out.
Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
Gavin King wrote:
I have an experimental (working) implementation of lazy components
in my sandbox. To be honest, I don't really like it very much.
Gavin King wrote:
I have an experimental (working) implementation of lazy components
in my sandbox. To be honest, I don't really like it very much. I can't
really support collections in lazy components without adding waaay
too much complexity, so I would have to put what seem like arbitrary
restri
