Yeap, that mail was before I talk to you :)
Tuna Toksöz
http://tunatoksoz.com
Typos included to enhance the readers attention!
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Paul Batum wrote:
> Oh yeah, the model is NOWHERE NEAR complete. There is a huge amount
> missing. I am trying to sketch out each b
Oh yeah, the model is NOWHERE NEAR complete. There is a huge amount missing.
I am trying to sketch out each broad area before I start filling in the
detail. I'm just finishing the work on demonstrating support for multiple
nhibernate versions and then I will be moving on to conventions.
On Thu, Ja
Hi Paul,
I guess the mapping classes are not yet complete, i mean PropertyMapping
doesn't have Type for the property, etc. I may be missing a point, so any
pointers is highly appreciated.
Tuna Toksöz
http://tunatoksoz.com
Typos included to enhance the readers attention!
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009
Ok, I will go with what you suggest and lets see what happens :)
Tuna Toksöz
http://tunatoksoz.com
Typos included to enhance the readers attention!
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Paul Batum wrote:
> Hi Tuna,
>
> One option is to start working with my branch. There is an integration test
>
Great idea.
As a DDDer I'd love to define my own semantics e.g. cascade only
within the aggregate, only lazy load between aggregates, when
reloading value object use constructor...whatever, but yeah being able
to define this all just using a few conventions which I could override
as appropriate w
Hi Tuna,
One option is to start working with my branch. There is an integration test
called Should_allow_music_entities_to_be_saved which passes and uses hbm.
Getting it to pass using your direct NHibernate configuration approach would
be a step in the right direction I think. To do so, I would su
You mentioned my name, so here is the question: I have some freetime (some
weeks) that I can spend on fluent nhibernate and I don't know where to
start. Create a seperate branch and work there or what?
I also don't really know how to test them because the story goes on
SimpleValue, Property classes
gt;>>>>>>> However the fluent api is great for customising those instances where
>>>>>>>> you go
>>>>>>>> against the convention, so we should definetly keep it, it just needs
>>>>>>>> re-engineering over a se
o
>>>>>>> against the convention, so we should definetly keep it, it just needs
>>>>>>> re-engineering over a semantic model rather than the xml. The question
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> how do we move the re-engineer what we've got without doing a massive
>>>>>&
ver a semantic model rather than the xml. The question is
>>>>>> how do we move the re-engineer what we've got without doing a massive
>>>>>> rewrite which I think would be bad idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>
e which I think would be bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jeremy D. Miller <
>>>>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's definitely going to be nice to do the one-offs as something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Customize(Action)
>>>>>
>>>>> instead of having to translate everything to the Xml
>>>>>
>&
t; instead of having to translate everything to the Xml
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy D. Miller
>>>> The Shade Tree Developer <http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller>
>>>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
ng to translate everything to the Xml
>>>
>>> Jeremy D. Miller
>>> The Shade Tree Developer <http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller>
>>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> Jeremy D. Miller
>> The Shade Tree Developer <http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller>
>> jeremydmil...@yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --------------
>> *From:* Chad Myers
>> *To:* fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2
googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2009 1:38:45 PM
> *Subject:* [fluent-nhib] Re: Rethinking Fluent NHibernate
>
> We're mostly there, we have the starts of it, but AutoMap was build on top
> of the Fluent API which has hampered it.
>
> First, we need the semantic mode
rnate@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:38:45 PM
Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Rethinking Fluent NHibernate
We're mostly there, we have the starts of it, but AutoMap was build on top of
the Fluent API which has hampered it.
First, we need the semantic model. Paul Batum said he'd
Jumped the gun a bit there.
All sounds like a good plan for the future. Just FYI as of next week
I'm (deliberately) unemployed, so I may be that champion. We'll have
to kick up some discussions.
On 1/12/09, James Gregory wrote:
> What part of this isn't possible at the moment? Or are you talkin
What part of this isn't possible at the moment? Or are you talking
about making it cleaner or more intuitive?
On 1/12/09, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> +1
> That is what I seek
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> [Credit to Aaron Jensen for giving some great feedback a
We're mostly there, we have the starts of it, but AutoMap was build on top of
the Fluent API which has hampered it.
First, we need the semantic model. Paul Batum said he'd have this done by the
end of the week ;) j/k. We've kicked around ideas, this just needs a champion
to get the ball roll
+1
That is what I seek
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Chad Myers wrote:
> [Credit to Aaron Jensen for giving some great feedback and sending me
> down this thought path, and numerous others who have complained about lack
> of private/protected member support and for committers/contrib
21 matches
Mail list logo
