ok.. ok.. they are some details we can talk about during/after implementation. I'll wait some others few days, for feedback, before start the implementation in NH3.0.
2010/1/18 Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > I think that FNH wiki post I linked does an excellent job of outlining the > tradeoffs in the various (general) approaches. I'm not necessarily > suggesting that (like FNH chose) NH should support all approaches equally by > any means, just that its a good summary of the relative pros and cons of > each approach for consideration re: how best to address the impedence > between Expressions and private members. > > > Steve Bohlen > [email protected] > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com > http://twitter.com/sbohlen > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2010/1/18 Erich Eichinger <[email protected]> >> >> Why not offer both choices to the user? Some may prefer resilience to >>> refactoring over purity >>> >> >> Possible and we can implements it but does not mean that I should like it. >> In NH there are a lot of thing I would remove... >> the first, for example, is <composite-id> without a specific class for ID, >> the second is <join> inside Class (ok inside <subclass>) >> and there are many others that does not mean I'll remove it. ;) >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
