I generally agree with this as well, that there should be at least one
default convention in a later release. That said, it might be an
uphill battle to get there. My convention is better than your
convention. :P
It's fine to release without it now.
Patrick Earl
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
