In this hypothetical example, if there was a common base class for the
project, it would have been Ignored but there would still be further
inheritance among actual domain entities.
Class A, which is inherited by Class B - is there any way to instruct
the automapper that I want these mapped to co
It depends on your design. If you have a common base class, for
example, then you could use IgnoreBase, but if you have an actual
hierarchy then that might be more tricky. What do you have in mind?
On Tuesday, November 3, 2009, Jay Oliver wrote:
>
> That's probably essentially correct. Is there
That's probably essentially correct. Is there any way to get the
AutoMapper to do it?
On Nov 3, 8:47 am, James Gregory wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that just be mapping everything using
> a ClassMap?
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jay Oliver wrote:
>
> > Ah, now that I se
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that just be mapping everything using
a ClassMap?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jay Oliver wrote:
>
> Ah, now that I see what DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn does, I realize
> that I've misread your answer. My apologies.
>
> Table per-class-hierarchy and ta
Ah, now that I see what DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn does, I realize
that I've misread your answer. My apologies.
Table per-class-hierarchy and table-per-subclass seem to be working as
expected, what I'm curious about is if there's any support for saying
"I want these objects mapped to their ow
I don't have any specific mappings I'm having a problem with handy,
this is just something I [thought I] noticed while trying to get back
up to speed on all the recent developments with NH/Fluent/SharpArch.
I guess my confusion mostly stemmed from only finding two values in
the enum for subclass
Both options are still available. If you call DiscriminateSubclassesOnColumn
anywhere in your mappings then that dictates you want a
table-per-class-hierarchy, otherwise it defaults to table-per-subclass.
Please show us your mappings.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Jay Oliver wrote:
>
> This i
Original Message-
> From: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> fluent-nhibern...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lukasz Podolak
> Sent: 16 June 2009 16:18
> To: Fluent NHibernate
> Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Table-per-concrete class mapping?
>
>
> Thank y
al Message-
> From: fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> fluent-nhibern...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lukasz Podolak
> Sent: 16 June 2009 16:18
> To: Fluent NHibernate
> Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Table-per-concrete class mapping?
>
>
> Thank you Hudson,
>
June 2009 16:18
To: Fluent NHibernate
Subject: [fluent-nhib] Re: Table-per-concrete class mapping?
Thank you Hudson,
but I still can't make it working. Could you please take a quick look
at my example ?
here are my classess (one abstract and one conrete). I have more
concrete classess like Con
Thank you Hudson,
but I still can't make it working. Could you please take a quick look
at my example ?
here are my classess (one abstract and one conrete). I have more
concrete classess like Contractor, but didn't want to include for
brevity.
public abstract class DictionaryBase : Entity
{
In FNH, it would be a .JoinedSubClass("columnName",x=>
x.YourSubClassMappingHere);
Although as a point of contention, one of the reasons why the table per
class hierarchy is default, is because it's the easiest to use in the
database, and it's also the best performing option. Having done a fairly
c
12 matches
Mail list logo
