Fair enough. What if the AutoPersistenceModel simply initializes the Convention to use declaring/reflected type?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Chris Marisic <chrismari...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > It just seems like it would be really unintuitive which adds alot of > friction to automapping since even if your objects were perfect 1 to 1 > mappings of your database tables except the Id column on your tables > includes the table name I think a person that would try FH would > become really frustrated for not being able to figure out how to map > the PK to be Type+"ID" unless it was somehow said very clearly or they > have done alot of work using PropertyInfo's to immediately think I can > resolve it up to the type of the object. But even with that, they > would need to try to figure out what the PropertyInfo actually even is > for PK. It just seems like there needs to be a more intuitive way > otherwise I'd be willing to bet you will see this question brought up > for the entire duration of FH. > > On Dec 11, 9:56 pm, "Paul Batum" <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can you explain why using ReflectedType or DeclaringType (I haven't > thought > > carefully about which one should be used) is a "hack"? I was not > suggesting > > that it be used in the code base, rather than the user would specify it > if > > they were using the automapping. > > > > Perhaps I am still missing the point? > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fluent NHibernate" group. To post to this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fluent-nhibernate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
