So without any out-of-the-box conventions the primary use-case for this feature would be limited to declarative mapping in code (unless the user then authored their own conventions of course), is that right --? That seems a reasonable starting point for a first release but I think its valuable to provide usable out-of-the-box conventions to assist new adopters so I'd recommend that we try to ensure that some conventions make it into the very next release.
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > To try to be more clear... > A convention is all ways opinable and we have enough work to do to maintain > even our conventions over the default-NH-conventions (property-name = > columnName for example). > > Perhaps we may includes some default-conventions later (for example > many-to-many table = RoleToUser). > Thoughts ? > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi all. >> I'm implementing ConventionModelMapper but I'm a little bit boring >> basically because I'm re-implementing re-testing someones of ConfORM >> patterns-appliers. >> >> Do you mind if we release NH3.2 with the ability to implement a Convention >> based mapping but without provide real conventions ? >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
