nhibernate@googlegroups.com
Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Replacement for TheColumnNameIs in
PropertyMap
Martin: It wouldn't, it's the lack of the collection that affects the
conventions.
We used to have two methods ColumnName, and ColumnNames, both were
cumulative and resulted in
s.com [mailto:
> fluent-nhibern...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *James Gregory
> *Sent:* 30 March 2009 17:29
> *To:* fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [fluent-nhib] Re: Replacement for TheColumnNameIs in
> PropertyMap
>
>
>
> I think the way to go for this is
ections
in a method would affect the conventions though
From: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com
[mailto:fluent-nhibern...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James Gregory
Sent: 30 March 2009 17:29
To: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com
Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Replacement for TheColumnNameIs in
P
I think the way to go for this is to follow Jon's suggestion of having a
single parameter method that can be used for if there's only one column, and
the (currently available) collection property for use when you need to have
more than one column, or if you need to modify or interrogate the collect
Again, we had this previously and it suffers from the problem of not being
able to interrogate or modify the collection at convention time.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Paul Yoder wrote:
> What about using a params string array in the method parameter to support
> single and multiple column
What about using a params string array in the method parameter to support
single and multiple column names?
So instead of
Map(x => x.BusinessName).ColumnNames(c =>
{
c.AddColumn("FirmCol1");
c.AddColumn("FirmCol2");
}
it could be
Map(x => x.BusinessName).ColumnNames("FirmCol1", "FirmCol2");
You said it yourself, its not so fluent. This approach reduces the
readability of the code.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:52 PM, NiHique wrote:
>
> What about: Map(x => x.BusinessName, "FirmName");
>
> It is shorter and works pretty well, also with Identity ok, not so
> fluent but still pretty s
What about: Map(x => x.BusinessName, "FirmName");
It is shorter and works pretty well, also with Identity ok, not so
fluent but still pretty straightforward;)
On Mar 29, 11:15 am, James Gregory wrote:
> I'm ok with that... :)
>
> On 3/29/09, Jon Kruger wrote:
>
> > Right, but couldn't you
I'm ok with that... :)
On 3/29/09, Jon Kruger wrote:
> Right, but couldn't you have ...
>
> Map(x => x.BusinessName).ColumnName("FirmName");
>
> ... which internally just calls ...
>
> ColumnNames.Clear();
> ColumnNames.Add("FirmName");
>
> That way everyone could have their way.
>
> On Sat, Mar
Right, but couldn't you have ...
Map(x => x.BusinessName).ColumnName("FirmName");
... which internally just calls ...
ColumnNames.Clear();
ColumnNames.Add("FirmName");
That way everyone could have their way.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM, James Gregory wrote:
> Yep, that's how it used to be
Yep, that's how it used to be but there was no easy way to handle clearing
and counting of columns for conventional support without adding all the
methods directly to the property map itself.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Paul Batum wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> It looks like its been changed to sup
Hi Lars,
It looks like its been changed to support multiple columns. For now, this
should work:
Map(x => x.BusinessName).ColumnNames.Add("FirmName")
I'm not sure if I like this change. James, did you consider achieving this
with two methods, one that takes a string and another that takes a lam
12 matches
Mail list logo
