In this hypothetical example, if there was a common base class for the project, it would have been Ignored but there would still be further inheritance among actual domain entities.
Class A, which is inherited by Class B - is there any way to instruct the automapper that I want these mapped to completely separate tables with columns in table B for properties defined in Class A and no joins necessary to completely fetch a Class B (realizing full well this doesn't support the full range of functionality, polymorphic fetches, for example). This was mostly idle curiosity on my part, as I'm trying to get back up to speed on the past years worth of developments in various open source projects and trying to compare/contrast what I did before (for pure learning/experimenting projects) with what I'm seeing now, and I'm fairly Unfortunately, I'm struggling to come up with a non abstract example that would actually make sense, and I'm starting to feel like I'm squandering your time on something that really isn't all that important. If I can think of a valid example, I'll come back to the list with it. On Nov 3, 9:53 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote: > It depends on your design. If you have a common base class, for > example, then you could use IgnoreBase, but if you have an actual > hierarchy then that might be more tricky. What do you have in mind? > > On Tuesday, November 3, 2009, Jay Oliver <kyth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's probably essentially correct. Is there any way to get the > > AutoMapper to do it? > > > On Nov 3, 8:47 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that just be mapping everything using > >> a ClassMap? > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jay Oliver <kyth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Ah, now that I see what DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn does, I realize > >> > that I've misread your answer. My apologies. > > >> > Table per-class-hierarchy and table-per-subclass seem to be working as > >> > expected, what I'm curious about is if there's any support for saying > >> > "I want these objects mapped to their own completely separate, stand- > >> > alone tables, regardless of the fact that they may be inheriting from > >> > each other". In other words, while one may inherit from the other in > >> > the domain, but I would prefer if NHibernate *completely* ignored that > >> > fact. > > >> > I may be mistaken, but I believe this used to be possible, and perhaps > >> > was even the default behavior at some point in the past. Is there any > >> > way to still achieve this effect? > > >> > On Nov 3, 8:37 am, Jay Oliver <kyth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > I don't have any specific mappings I'm having a problem with handy, > >> > > this is just something I [thought I] noticed while trying to get back > >> > > up to speed on all the recent developments with NH/Fluent/SharpArch. > > >> > > I guess my confusion mostly stemmed from only finding two values in > >> > > the enum for subclass strategy. I'll check into > >> > > DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn and get back to you if I still can't > >> > > figure it out. > > >> > > Thanks for the speedy reply! > > >> > > On Nov 3, 8:32 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > Both options are still available. If you call > >> > DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn > >> > > > anywhere in your mappings then that dictates you want a > >> > > > table-per-class-hierarchy, otherwise it defaults to > >> > > > table-per-subclass. > > >> > > > Please show us your mappings. > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Jay Oliver <kyth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > This is probably a stupid question, but I've been deeply submerged > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > a project for a good while now, and haven't been following NH/FNH > >> > > > > progress that closely. > > >> > > > > Previously I believe I was able to specify that I wanted every > >> > > > > concrete class mapped to its own table. Now the only options seem > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > be table per class hierarchy and a table for all subclasses. > > >> > > > > Is this truly the case or am I missing something? If so, can anyone > >> > > > > let me please let me know why this changed? I'm not challenging the > >> > > > > decision (if there was one), I'm just curious and I can't seem to > >> > find > >> > > > > anything out via searching the mailing list or google. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
