Ugh. Thank you again, Microsoft. Your own bug requires this 'fix' but your own framework is sealed against our introducing the fix where it makes sense. Apparently they meant "can't fix" rather than "won't fix" :P
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > :( > public *sealed* class SqlParameter > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If the way of specific types is not good, we have to choose the way Steve >> said. >> I have slept a bit and perhaps this mornig I can solve the problem in >> the same place where it should be already solved. >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> >> El 24/04/2011, a las 23:47, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> escribió: >> >> > I dug into this a little further and it seems IType already has the >> > Driver available through session.Factory.ConnectionProvider.Driver. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > Patrick Earl >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Even if this is difficult, it seems to fill a "hole" in the existing >> >> design. The fact that there's no way to intercept the Get/Set >> >> operations in the IType is a problem that deserves to be solved IMHO. >> >> For myself, I'd even go so far as to introduce a breaking change in >> >> the IType interface if needed. (Or creating something like >> >> ITypeExtended to avoid the interface breakage, but the point is the >> >> same). The ability to handle parameter values in database-specific >> >> way is quite useful. >> >> >> >> Patrick Earl >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As a possible hitch in this idea, I'm not sure if the IType can get >> >>> access to the driver. >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> I would propose that something like... >> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
