Huge, the more you explain what you are looking for the less NH fits your needs. it sounds like you want transaction scripts, not an ORM. An ORM is more than simply CRUD. It's cache, change tracking, concurrency, unit of work, etc. transaction scripts are just CRUD statements. this may better suite your needs.
On Aug 4, 12:21 pm, Huge <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jason, > > #1 - I don't know how to write a Bytecode provider. I had never heard > of that before a couple weeks ago. To me it is still just something > that gets in the way, some extra thing I have to have in order to use > NHibernate. I know, I'm being naive. So I'll have to devote some > days to doing research on that, now. > > #2 - I have objects that last the entire lifetime of the application. > When certain features of the app are accessed, certain subobjects of > those lifetime objects must be loaded at that time. Our application > is for the management and running of a Doctor's office. While we do > have some functionality that fits into the Unit of Work paradigm, we > have quite a bit that does not. > > #3 - At my office I am the keeper of the bytes. Nobody else will > watch the size of the download but me. One thing I cannot stop doing > because it is part of my blood, is trying to optimize network > traffic. That means everything from properly compressing JPG/PNG/GIF > images for use on the web, to monitoring the size and number of third > party DLLs that make their way into our customers's downloads. Some > of our customers really are using very old and outdated equipment and > I try always to get the product down to the simplest and smallest > form. It does make a difference for these people. > > #4 - I am now using my own build of NHibernate that doesn't have > System.Data.OracleClient or System.Web references. The reason for > this is to be compatible with the so-called .Net 3.5 Framework "Client > Profile" which doesn't include either of those. > > Thank you everyone else for your responses as well. I had considered > Linq2SQL previously but since I had such a terrible time with Entity > Framework 4's poor Optimistic Concurrency implementation, I moved away > from Microsoft ORM. Now, considering your responses, I will revisit > Linq2SQL and see if that will satisfy our needs. > > Hugh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
