The hard work to do is this:
var cfg = new Configuration();
cfg.SessionFactory()
.Proxy.Through<ProxyFactoryFactory>()
.Integrate
.Using<MsSql2008Dialect>()
.Connected
.Using(new SqlConnectionStringBuilder
{
DataSource = "(local)",
InitialCatalog = "nhibernate",
IntegratedSecurity = true
});
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ya, I think you're right that as a core development project, we don't
> really need to publish packages that are based on preference of
> operating mode. I do however think that we need to provide packages
> that actually save time and help the user, rather than just making
> them do all the hard work themselves. The spirit of this is embodied
> in the NuGet example video for Elmah. You install the package and it
> configures your application immediately for use. I would be rather
> disappointed if there was no help in this area and the nuget packages
> only served as a fancy zip file with dlls.
>
> Patrick Earl
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > What I mean with this is that the NH team should avoid to publish
> packages
> > where the main matter is: "This is my taste about how work with NH".
> > As example try to write a post about: How implement session-per-request
> in
> > ASP.NET MVC3.(note: I didn't say how manage NH session in general).
> > Or even a more simple post as: The best way to configure session-factory
> > with NH3
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Guys.
> >> NuGet is free.
> >> You can create your :
> >>
> FullAspNetMvc3WithRazorAnd_StructureMap_BaseEntity_QueriableRepo_NH3_NHV_NHSP_NHE.nuspec
> >> in your local machine or in "your own space"in NuGet-gallery
> >>
> as:
> JhonWhite.FullAspNetMvc3WithRazorAnd_StructureMap_BaseEntity_QueriableRepo_NH3LinFu_NHV_NHSR_NHSP_NHE.nuspec
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well, it shows that you're continually thinking :)
> >>>
> >>> Here's my comments (more or less in order of your ideas)...
> >>>
> >>> re: including (consistent) categories (ByteCode, Database, etc.) in the
> >>> package names: good idea, I like it and it makes a lot of sense to me
> >>> re: changing config files in addition to just adding assemblies, I fear
> >>> that this is anything but straightforward given the many, many ways one
> can
> >>> now configure NH (app.config/web.config, hibernate.cfg.xml, Loquacious
> >>> code-config, etc.); I'd hate to have a package manager register the
> >>> ProxyFactoryFactory in hibernate.cfg.xml when the whole rest of my
> config
> >>> was in my web.config or in code -- it would be the *last* place I'd
> look to
> >>> see WTF was going on with my app when all hell breaks loose after I add
> the
> >>> package <g>; this probably needs so serious consideration re: how it
> would
> >>> ever work; not dismissing it, just suggesting its a non-trivial problem
> to
> >>> solve
> >>> re: a dummy package that just contains a 'getting started.txt' file, to
> >>> me this seems mostly contrary to the concept of NuGet as
> >>> add-assemblies-to-my-project, but I don't dismiss it out of hand
> entirely;
> >>> what do others think about this strategy--?
> >>> re: 'starter packages' like Nhibernate.Example.AspNet, I like this idea
> >>> (a LOT) but I'm not certain how simple it is to actually deliver what
> >>> amounts to an entire new project infrastructure via NuGet; some
> >>> experimenting with this seems to be warranted to better understand the
> >>> limitations of this kind of unintended use of NuGet
> >>>
> >>> Steve Bohlen
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
> >>> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, my brain won't shut up.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had the thought that packages like NHibernate.Example.AspNet or
> >>>> NHibernate.Full.AspNet could be offered. These combined packages
> >>>> could have all appropriate dependencies to get up and running in a
> >>>> particular scenario. The fact of the matter is that the NHibernate
> >>>> world is so flexible and wide-reaching, that it's hard to pre-decide
> >>>> on an exact set of packages the user might need. I would think it
> >>>> would be more clear in the end to have simple packages and then
> >>>> combine them either through "example" packages or documentation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick Earl
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Fabio Maulo
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fabio Maulo
> >
> >
>
--
Fabio Maulo
