...and there's me thinking chunk was an amusing name ;)
ConfigPart, Configurer, Config, ConfigUnit, any ideas?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Jimit <jimitndi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's it. :)
>
> On Feb 10, 11:19 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What's wrong with the chunk? naming?
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jimit <jimitndi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for the IMappingOverrides option. I ended up doing something pretty
> > > similar that works pretty well so far.:
> >
> > > public AutoPersistenceModel ApplyMappingOverridesFromAssembly<T>(this
> > > AutoPersistenceModel)
> > > {
> >
> > > IEnumerable<MethodInfo> mappingOverrides =
> > > from type in
> > > typeof(T).Assembly.GetTypes()
> > > where
> > > type.IsSubClassOf(typeof (IMappingOverride<>))
> > > from method in
> > > type.GetMethods()
> > > where
> > > method.DeclaringType == type
> > > &&
> > > method.ReturnType == typeof (void)
> > > &&
> > > method.GetParameters().Count() == 1 &&
> >
> > > method.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType.
> >
> > > GetGenericTypeDefinition() ==
> > > typeof
> > > (AutoMap<>)
> > > select method;
> > > mappingOverrides.ForEach(method =>
> > > {
> > > var entityType =
> > > method.GetParameters()
> > > [0].ParameterType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
> > > var autoMapType = typeof
> > > (AutoMap<>).MakeGenericType(new[] {entityType});
> > > var actionType = typeof
> > > (Action<>).MakeGenericType(new[] {autoMapType});
> > > var mappingAction = new[]
> > > {Delegate.CreateDelegate(actionType, method)};
> >
> > > InvocationHelper.InvokeGenericMethodWithDynamicTypeArguments(
> > > model,
> > > map =>
> > > map.ForTypesThatDeriveFrom<Object>(null),
> > > mappingAction,
> > > entityType);
> > > });
> > > return model;
> > > }
> >
> > > Not too crazy about the IAutoMappingConfigChunk though.
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 12:15 am, Billy <wmccaffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That strategy works for me.
> >
> > > > Thank you for being accommodating a viable approach to organizing
> > > > overrides.
> >
> > > > Billy
> >
> > > > On Feb 9, 4:37 pm, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Well, I'm torn.
> > > > > I've just knocked together a prototype for what is essentially
> Billy's
> > > > > design, reworked a bit.
> > > > > I've created an IAutoMappingConfigChunk, which has an
> > > > > Configure(AutoPersistenceModel model) method. You add chunks to an
> APM,
> > > each
> > > > > one gets executed before the mappings are compiled.
> >
> > > > > Leading on from that, I've created an IMappingOverride<T>
> interface,
> > > which
> > > > > has a single method of Override(AutoMap<T> mapping); this interface
> > > allows
> > > > > you to have the simplicity of class-per-override as the inheritance
> > > > > strategy, but without the nasty inheritance.
> >
> > > > > IMappingOverride's are added using a custom IAutoMappingConfigChunk
> > > that
> > > > > takes an assembly and finds any types that derive from
> > > IMappingOverride. So
> > > > > i'm actually dogfooding the config stuff.
> >
> > > > >http://gist.github.com/61092-configchunk stuffhttp://
> > > gist.github.com/61097-IMappingOverride<T> stuff
> >
> > > > > What do you guys think?
> >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Steven Harman <
> stevehar...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Just doing my part to keep everyone thoroughly confused and
> > > confounded! :)
> >
> > > > > > //---- 90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at ----//
> > > > > >http://stevenharman.net/
> >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, James Gregory <
> > > jagregory....@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> One for each then, thanks guys! :)
> >
> > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Steven Harman <
> > > stevehar...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>> Seeing this new way, I think I'd much prefer it to using
> > > inheritance.
> > > > > >>> I've really started to realize that inheritance is rarely the
> > > optimal
> > > > > >>> solution to a problem - often its simply the one we are most
> comfy
> > > with, and
> > > > > >>> so we naturally go there first.
> >
> > > > > >>> So, I guess what I'm saying is... I'd rather see the extension
> > > method
> > > > > >>> way, as it adds a nice point of extension, while allowing us to
> > > leverage
> > > > > >>> composition to build really dynamic and granular mapping
> overrides.
> > > Or at
> > > > > >>> least, that's my gut reaction.
> >
> > > > > >>> Thanks all,
> > > > > >>> -steve
> >
> > > > > >>> //---- 90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at
> ----//
> > > > > >>>http://stevenharman.net/
> >
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Billy <wmccaffe...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> James,
> >
> > > > > >>>> Thank you for my input on the matter; albeit, I'd like it to
> be
> > > > > >>>> perfectly known that I'm still getting my feet wet with Fluent
> > > > > >>>> NHibernate and have a lot to learn on the subject.
> Personally, I
> > > like
> > > > > >>>> the ability to inherit from AutoMap as it makes the behavior
> more
> > > > > >>>> interchangeable with ClassMap behavior. It also makes the
> mapping
> > > > > >>>> identical in nature to that of ClassMap without having to
> > > introduce
> > > > > >>>> lambdas, which I see as complicating the matter, if only
> slightly.
> > > > > >>>> Finally, it makes it easier to use inheritance to create a
> > > grouping of
> > > > > >>>> overridden mappings. For instance, suppose you want an
> > > > > >>>> AuditableAutoMap<> base class which inherits from AutoMap<>
> and
> > > > > >>>> overrides a number of conventions for any entity that is
> > > IAuditable.
> > > > > >>>> You could than have a concrete MyEntityMapClass which inherits
> > > from
> > > > > >>>> AuditableAutoMap<>, one for each IAuditable entity. This
> would
> > > allow
> > > > > >>>> you to create an "override group" if you will.
> >
> > > > > >>>> With that said, there are other approaches that could be taken
> to
> > > > > >>>> simulate on override grouping via encapsulation rather than
> via
> > > > > >>>> inheritance. But it's nice to have the inheritance option, if
> > > only
> > > > > >>>> for organization and consistency with ClassMap. :D When it
> comes
> > > down
> > > > > >>>> to it, there are decisions that must be made for the integrity
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> design; if you feel that avoiding AutoMap inheritance is in
> the
> > > best
> > > > > >>>> interest of the overall design of Fluent NHibernate, then I'm
> very
> > > > > >>>> supportive of that decision as well.
> >
> > > > > >>>> Thanks for all your great work on Fluent NHibernate...it's
> been a
> > > big
> > > > > >>>> hit within S#arp Architecture.
> >
> > > > > >>>> Billy McCafferty
> >
> > > > > >>>> On Feb 9, 1:07 pm, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > I think what I've been saying may have been interpreted as
> being
> > > more
> > > > > >>>> > negative or hostile than I intended it to be. My basic point
> > > was,
> > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > >>>> > isn't a bug because you aren't using a "feature" of FNH.
> > > > > >>>> > I'm happy for this to become a proper supported way of
> > > overriding
> > > > > >>>> > automappings, but for me to be expected to support it I have
> to
> > > > > >>>> actually
> > > > > >>>> > write coverage for it. Until I do that, it's unofficial.
> >
> > > > > >>>> > As for my stance on actually using it, as long as it's
> explained
> > > that
> > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > >>>> > are overrides (and as Steve said, with a decent naming
> > > convention)
> > > > > >>>> there's
> > > > > >>>> > nothing wrong with inheriting from AutoMap<T>. I'm all for
> SoC.
> >
> > > > > >>>> > Billy: do you prefer your new way of writing the overrides,
> or
> > > would
> > > > > >>>> you
> > > > > >>>> > prefer to just inherit from AutoMap? Is this new way just to
> > > avoid the
> > > > > >>>> bug?
> >
> > > > > >>>> > What I'm saying is: say the word and I'll make this an
> official
> > > > > >>>> feature;
> > > > > >>>> > then I won't moan about not supporting an unofficial
> feature.
> >
> > > > > >>>> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Billy <
> wmccaffe...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > Here's the final approach that I took to organize my
> > > overrides:
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > 1) Add an override interface to your application as
> follows:
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > using FluentNHibernate.AutoMap;
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > namespace SharpArch.Data.NHibernate.FluentNHibernate
> > > > > >>>> > > {
> > > > > >>>> > > /// <summary>
> > > > > >>>> > > /// Used by <see cref="AutoPersistenceModelExtensions"
> />
> > > to add
> > > > > >>>> > > auto mapping overrides
> > > > > >>>> > > /// to <see cref="AutoPersistenceModel" />
> > > > > >>>> > > /// </summary>
> > > > > >>>> > > public interface IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride
> > > > > >>>> > > {
> > > > > >>>> > > AutoPersistenceModel Override(AutoPersistenceModel
> > > model);
> > > > > >>>> > > }
> > > > > >>>> > > }
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > 2) Create an extension method, as follows, to look for
> every
> > > class
> > > > > >>>> > > which implements IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride,
> in a
> > > > > >>>> > > particular assembly, and apply the override to
> > > AutoPersistenceModel:
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > using FluentNHibernate.AutoMap;
> > > > > >>>> > > using System.Reflection;
> > > > > >>>> > > using System;
> > > > > >>>> > > using SharpArch.Core;
> >
> > > > > >>>> > > namespace SharpArch.Data.NHibernate.FluentNHibernate
> > > > > >>>> > > {
> > > > > >>>> > > /// <summary>
> > > > > >>>> > > /// Provides a means to override <see
> > > cref="AutoPersistenceModel"
> > > > > >>>> /
> > > > > >>>> > > > conventions with classes
> > > > > >>>> > > /// that implement <see
> > > > > >>>> > > cref="IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride" />.
> > > > > >>>> > > /// </summary>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
