I found the solution in the Driver, but our Batcher does not use the driver.
Obviously the less invasive solution would be a custom SqlParameter but...
ADO.NET applies "program to interface" but the others SqlClient stuff does
not know what mean "program to interface".

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Fabio Maulo

Reply via email to