The warning bothers me a little but the main thing is that I don't
want to get conditioned to always ignore that warning. Chris
Constantin's response to mark my class sealed works for me (and I wish
I'd thought of it).
On Dec 23, 2:51 pm, "James Gregory" wrote:
> If that warning really bothers y
Why not have both options? :)
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Chris Marisic wrote:
>
> If you're classes are that similar that you could set up a basemap for
> them, why wouldn't you just use AutoMapping since that's the point of
> it to have it be able to handle the commonality of classes easi
If you're classes are that similar that you could set up a basemap for
them, why wouldn't you just use AutoMapping since that's the point of
it to have it be able to handle the commonality of classes easily.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because yo
I can envision schenarios where you'd want to inherit from a MyBaseMap class.
I'm for James' solution .
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Chris Marisic wrote:
>
> I think Chris's answer is the best solution. Adding in Initialization
> methods makes me feel that I'm working with data tables and ot
I think Chris's answer is the best solution. Adding in Initialization
methods makes me feel that I'm working with data tables and other code
that Y2K would've broke. I don't see any downside to it since would
you ever inherit from your custom class maps? I can't see a reason you
would ever want to
As a temporary solution, you can mark your MyClassMap class as sealed,
and the warnings will go away.
Chris
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:37 PM, James Gregory wrote:
>
> Because that's not a very nice solution. The whole point of a fluent
> API is that it's readable, and having base prefixed on ev
