Why is it 'fundamental' ? Can't NH work without it? It looks like a validation that could be easily removed. I don't need it, and I think Fabio's solution is the best one, however I see no reason to don't add a new feature to NH if the patch is submitted.
Maybe there's another solution: make the validations injectable, that way validations can be extended or (although it's not recommended) removed. Came on Fabio, be good with contributors =) On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:09, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > The check of the expectation is a fundamental check. > I have a proposal for you: change the stored procedure. > You can't touch it ? well... to work with untouchable code is an hard > living; Elliot Ness is not a guy of this century. > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:35 AM, mikedoherty > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be asking this question >> but I would like to submit a patch for NH-1353 and have some questions >> about my proposed solution and whether or not it would be suitable. >> >> Basically our team need to be able to turn off the expectation that >> the number of rows returned from the query matches the number expected >> by NHibernate as we have no control over the triggers on our 3rd party >> database. It would appear that we are not alone in this requirement. >> NH-1353 proposes a potential solution to this problem along with a >> patch but it appears that this patch was never accepted. As an >> alternative then I would like to propose an alternative, and hopefully >> more acceptable, solution. >> >> Firstly what I would like to propose is that this expectation can be >> turned off for an individual entity via the class or collection >> mapping. As a result this approach would require a new attribute in >> the hbm schema. Is it acceptable to add new attributes or do you need >> to keep compatibility with the Java configuration schema? >> >> Secondly, assuming a new attribute would be acceptable, what name >> should I give to the new attribute? Looking at the schema the sql- >> insert, sql-update and sql-delete elements allow control over this >> using the "check" attribute. However class already has an attribute >> called check for constraints. Within the code there are two ways of >> referring to this check either as an Expectation or as >> ExecuteUpdateResultCheckStyle so maybe the attribute could be called >> "expectation" or "check-style"? I would appreciate guidance on this >> too. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Mike Doherty >> >> >> -- >> Subscription settings: >> http://groups.google.com/group/nhibernate-development/subscribe?hl=en >> > > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
