Hi Paul When you get the base in place, let me know and I'll work on porting automap over the top.
Andy On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chad and I had a useful chat last week about the semantic model, so I have > a direction to pursue. I will be spending some time on it this week. > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Dru Sellers <d...@drusellers.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Stewart < >> andrew.stew...@i-nnovate.net> wrote: >> >>> Yo >>> It's good to see you've all caught up with me ;o), by the way automap >>> can do most of this already (disclaimer: there are bits missing) >>> >>> I'm all for this - Chad has hit it on the button, basically we need >>> cleaner convention support, and to make automap talk to a semantic model >>> rather than the fluent api, which is an absolute nightmare to work ontop of. >>> However the fluent api is great for customising those instances where you go >>> against the convention, so we should definetly keep it, it just needs >>> re-engineering over a semantic model rather than the xml. The question is >>> how do we move the re-engineer what we've got without doing a massive >>> rewrite which I think would be bad idea. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jeremy D. Miller < >>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It's definitely going to be nice to do the one-offs as something like: >>>> >>>> Customize(Action<SemanticModel>) >>>> >>>> instead of having to translate everything to the Xml >>>> >>>> Jeremy D. Miller >>>> The Shade Tree Developer <http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller> >>>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Chad Myers <c...@chadmyers.com> >>>> *To:* fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com >>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2009 1:38:45 PM >>>> *Subject:* [fluent-nhib] Re: Rethinking Fluent NHibernate >>>> >>>> We're mostly there, we have the starts of it, but AutoMap was build on >>>> top of the Fluent API which has hampered it. >>>> >>>> First, we need the semantic model. Paul Batum said he'd have this done >>>> by the end of the week ;) j/k. We've kicked around ideas, this just needs >>>> a >>>> champion to get the ball rolling. >>>> >>>> Second, we get really serious about conventions. To the maximum extent >>>> possible, all decisions and opinions become conventional. >>>> >>>> Third, we'd need to take the existing automapping discovery code and use >>>> it and possibly enhance it wherever it needs enhancement >>>> >>>> Fourth, we expose the config directly and/or have an internal DSL for >>>> making the one-off overrides and/or "more complex conventions" that depend >>>> on multiple conditions being met for them to be applied, etc >>>> >>>> -c >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com on behalf of Chad Myers >>>> Sent: Mon 1/12/2009 1:36 PM >>>> To: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: [fluent-nhib] Rethinking Fluent NHibernate >>>> >>>> >>>> [Credit to Aaron Jensen for giving some great feedback and sending me >>>> down this thought path, and numerous others who have complained about lack >>>> of private/protected member support and for committers/contributors who've >>>> been kicking around ideas and forging ahead with new ideas] >>>> >>>> What if we took the convention stuff all the way to 11? >>>> >>>> What if you could point FNH at your assembl(y|ies) and give it some >>>> criteria (i.e. everything in namespace FOO, that derives from type >>>> BaseEntity, etc) and it would discover all your entities that need mapped? >>>> >>>> What if FNH would discover all the public properties and public/private >>>> fields and could make reasonable guesses about how those should be mapped? >>>> >>>> What if you could guide it conventionally to figure out how to map the >>>> tricky parts? >>>> >>>> Lasty, for very complex things, you could dip down to specifics. >>>> >>>> I'm imaginging something like: >>>> >>>> Dear Fluent NHibernate: >>>> >>>> Please discover all my entities which are located in my "Core" assembly, >>>> in all namespaces under the namespace ending with "Domain", and which >>>> derive >>>> from my BaseEntity class. >>>> >>>> You should know: >>>> * All my entities have an "Id" property and should be mapped using the >>>> hi/lo + guid.comb generators >>>> * All my table names are the pluralized form of the entities names >>>> preceeded with "t_" >>>> * All my foreign key names start with "fk_" >>>> * All my many-to-many join tables have the format "mtm_A_B" where A and >>>> B are the pluralized form of the entity names >>>> * (etc, etc, etc) >>>> >>>> Also, if you come across an apparent relationship between Contact and >>>> Site, map it as a OTM to an intermediate table (using entity >>>> ContactSiteRole) and then an MTO to the other side (blah blah blah) >>>> >>>> If you come across a relationship involving EntityA and EntityB, map it >>>> like this... >>>> >>>> By the way, I'd like you to make all OTM's "Cascade All" except for >>>> relationships involving EntityF and EntityQ. >>>> >>>> (and so forth) >>>> >>>> -c >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ================= >>> I-nnovate Software - Bespoke Software Development, uk wirral. >>> http://www.i-nnovate.net >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- ================= I-nnovate Software - Bespoke Software Development, uk wirral. http://www.i-nnovate.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
