What's wrong with the chunk? naming?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jimit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +1 for the IMappingOverrides option. I ended up doing something pretty
> similar that works pretty well so far.:
>
> public AutoPersistenceModel ApplyMappingOverridesFromAssembly<T>(this
> AutoPersistenceModel)
> {
>
> IEnumerable<MethodInfo> mappingOverrides =
> from type in
> typeof(T).Assembly.GetTypes()
> where
> type.IsSubClassOf(typeof (IMappingOverride<>))
> from method in
> type.GetMethods()
> where
> method.DeclaringType == type
> &&
> method.ReturnType == typeof (void)
> &&
> method.GetParameters().Count() == 1 &&
>
> method.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType.
>
> GetGenericTypeDefinition() ==
> typeof
> (AutoMap<>)
> select method;
> mappingOverrides.ForEach(method =>
> {
> var entityType =
> method.GetParameters()
> [0].ParameterType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
> var autoMapType = typeof
> (AutoMap<>).MakeGenericType(new[] {entityType});
> var actionType = typeof
> (Action<>).MakeGenericType(new[] {autoMapType});
> var mappingAction = new[]
> {Delegate.CreateDelegate(actionType, method)};
>
> InvocationHelper.InvokeGenericMethodWithDynamicTypeArguments(
> model,
> map =>
> map.ForTypesThatDeriveFrom<Object>(null),
> mappingAction,
> entityType);
> });
> return model;
> }
>
> Not too crazy about the IAutoMappingConfigChunk though.
>
> On Feb 10, 12:15 am, Billy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That strategy works for me.
> >
> > Thank you for being accommodating a viable approach to organizing
> > overrides.
> >
> > Billy
> >
> > On Feb 9, 4:37 pm, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I'm torn.
> > > I've just knocked together a prototype for what is essentially Billy's
> > > design, reworked a bit.
> > > I've created an IAutoMappingConfigChunk, which has an
> > > Configure(AutoPersistenceModel model) method. You add chunks to an APM,
> each
> > > one gets executed before the mappings are compiled.
> >
> > > Leading on from that, I've created an IMappingOverride<T> interface,
> which
> > > has a single method of Override(AutoMap<T> mapping); this interface
> allows
> > > you to have the simplicity of class-per-override as the inheritance
> > > strategy, but without the nasty inheritance.
> >
> > > IMappingOverride's are added using a custom IAutoMappingConfigChunk
> that
> > > takes an assembly and finds any types that derive from
> IMappingOverride. So
> > > i'm actually dogfooding the config stuff.
> >
> > >http://gist.github.com/61092-config chunk stuffhttp://
> gist.github.com/61097-IMappingOverride<T> stuff
> >
> > > What do you guys think?
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Steven Harman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > Just doing my part to keep everyone thoroughly confused and
> confounded! :)
> >
> > > > //---- 90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at ----//
> > > >http://stevenharman.net/
> >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, James Gregory <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> > > >> One for each then, thanks guys! :)
> >
> > > >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Steven Harman <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> > > >>> Seeing this new way, I think I'd much prefer it to using
> inheritance.
> > > >>> I've really started to realize that inheritance is rarely the
> optimal
> > > >>> solution to a problem - often its simply the one we are most comfy
> with, and
> > > >>> so we naturally go there first.
> >
> > > >>> So, I guess what I'm saying is... I'd rather see the extension
> method
> > > >>> way, as it adds a nice point of extension, while allowing us to
> leverage
> > > >>> composition to build really dynamic and granular mapping overrides.
> Or at
> > > >>> least, that's my gut reaction.
> >
> > > >>> Thanks all,
> > > >>> -steve
> >
> > > >>> //---- 90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at ----//
> > > >>>http://stevenharman.net/
> >
> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Billy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> James,
> >
> > > >>>> Thank you for my input on the matter; albeit, I'd like it to be
> > > >>>> perfectly known that I'm still getting my feet wet with Fluent
> > > >>>> NHibernate and have a lot to learn on the subject. Personally, I
> like
> > > >>>> the ability to inherit from AutoMap as it makes the behavior more
> > > >>>> interchangeable with ClassMap behavior. It also makes the mapping
> > > >>>> identical in nature to that of ClassMap without having to
> introduce
> > > >>>> lambdas, which I see as complicating the matter, if only slightly.
> > > >>>> Finally, it makes it easier to use inheritance to create a
> grouping of
> > > >>>> overridden mappings. For instance, suppose you want an
> > > >>>> AuditableAutoMap<> base class which inherits from AutoMap<> and
> > > >>>> overrides a number of conventions for any entity that is
> IAuditable.
> > > >>>> You could than have a concrete MyEntityMapClass which inherits
> from
> > > >>>> AuditableAutoMap<>, one for each IAuditable entity. This would
> allow
> > > >>>> you to create an "override group" if you will.
> >
> > > >>>> With that said, there are other approaches that could be taken to
> > > >>>> simulate on override grouping via encapsulation rather than via
> > > >>>> inheritance. But it's nice to have the inheritance option, if
> only
> > > >>>> for organization and consistency with ClassMap. :D When it comes
> down
> > > >>>> to it, there are decisions that must be made for the integrity of
> the
> > > >>>> design; if you feel that avoiding AutoMap inheritance is in the
> best
> > > >>>> interest of the overall design of Fluent NHibernate, then I'm very
> > > >>>> supportive of that decision as well.
> >
> > > >>>> Thanks for all your great work on Fluent NHibernate...it's been a
> big
> > > >>>> hit within S#arp Architecture.
> >
> > > >>>> Billy McCafferty
> >
> > > >>>> On Feb 9, 1:07 pm, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>> > I think what I've been saying may have been interpreted as being
> more
> > > >>>> > negative or hostile than I intended it to be. My basic point
> was,
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>> > isn't a bug because you aren't using a "feature" of FNH.
> > > >>>> > I'm happy for this to become a proper supported way of
> overriding
> > > >>>> > automappings, but for me to be expected to support it I have to
> > > >>>> actually
> > > >>>> > write coverage for it. Until I do that, it's unofficial.
> >
> > > >>>> > As for my stance on actually using it, as long as it's explained
> that
> > > >>>> they
> > > >>>> > are overrides (and as Steve said, with a decent naming
> convention)
> > > >>>> there's
> > > >>>> > nothing wrong with inheriting from AutoMap<T>. I'm all for SoC.
> >
> > > >>>> > Billy: do you prefer your new way of writing the overrides, or
> would
> > > >>>> you
> > > >>>> > prefer to just inherit from AutoMap? Is this new way just to
> avoid the
> > > >>>> bug?
> >
> > > >>>> > What I'm saying is: say the word and I'll make this an official
> > > >>>> feature;
> > > >>>> > then I won't moan about not supporting an unofficial feature.
> >
> > > >>>> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Billy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> > > Here's the final approach that I took to organize my
> overrides:
> >
> > > >>>> > > 1) Add an override interface to your application as follows:
> >
> > > >>>> > > using FluentNHibernate.AutoMap;
> >
> > > >>>> > > namespace SharpArch.Data.NHibernate.FluentNHibernate
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > /// <summary>
> > > >>>> > > /// Used by <see cref="AutoPersistenceModelExtensions" />
> to add
> > > >>>> > > auto mapping overrides
> > > >>>> > > /// to <see cref="AutoPersistenceModel" />
> > > >>>> > > /// </summary>
> > > >>>> > > public interface IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > AutoPersistenceModel Override(AutoPersistenceModel
> model);
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> >
> > > >>>> > > 2) Create an extension method, as follows, to look for every
> class
> > > >>>> > > which implements IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride, in a
> > > >>>> > > particular assembly, and apply the override to
> AutoPersistenceModel:
> >
> > > >>>> > > using FluentNHibernate.AutoMap;
> > > >>>> > > using System.Reflection;
> > > >>>> > > using System;
> > > >>>> > > using SharpArch.Core;
> >
> > > >>>> > > namespace SharpArch.Data.NHibernate.FluentNHibernate
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > /// <summary>
> > > >>>> > > /// Provides a means to override <see
> cref="AutoPersistenceModel"
> > > >>>> /
> > > >>>> > > > conventions with classes
> > > >>>> > > /// that implement <see
> > > >>>> > > cref="IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride" />.
> > > >>>> > > /// </summary>
> > > >>>> > > public static class AutoPersistenceModelExtensions
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > public static AutoPersistenceModel
> > > >>>> > > MapConventionOverridesFromAssemblyOf<TOverride>(
> > > >>>> > > this AutoPersistenceModel autoPersistenceModel)
> where
> > > >>>> > > TOverride : IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride {
> >
> > > >>>> > > Assembly assemblyToPullConventionOverridesFrom =
> typeof
> > > >>>> > > (TOverride).Assembly;
> >
> > > >>>> > > foreach (Type type in
> > > >>>> > > assemblyToPullConventionOverridesFrom.GetTypes()) {
> > > >>>> > > if (typeof
> > > >>>> > >
> (IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride).IsAssignableFrom(type)) {
> > > >>>> > > IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride
> instance =
> > > >>>> > > Activator.CreateInstance(type) as
> > > >>>> > > IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride;
> >
> > > >>>> > > if (instance != null)
> > > >>>> > >
> instance.Override(autoPersistenceModel);
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> >
> > > >>>> > > return autoPersistenceModel;
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> >
> > > >>>> > > 3) Create a class for each entity that requires a convention
> > > >>>> override;
> > > >>>> > > for example:
> >
> > > >>>> > > using FluentNHibernate.AutoMap;
> > > >>>> > > using Northwind.Core;
> > > >>>> > > using SharpArch.Data.NHibernate.FluentNHibernate;
> >
> > > >>>> > > namespace Northwind.Data.NHibernateMappings
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > public class CustomerMap :
> IAutoPeristenceModelConventionOverride
> > > >>>> > > {
> > > >>>> > > public AutoPersistenceModel
> Override(AutoPersistenceModel
> > > >>>> > > model) {
> > > >>>> > > return model.ForTypesThatDeriveFrom<Customer>(map
> => {
> > > >>>> > > map.SetAttribute("lazy", "false");
> > > >>>> > > });
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> > > >>>> > > }
> >
> > > >>>> > > 4) Include a call to the extension method when setting up the
> > > >>>> > > AutoPersistenceModel; e.g.,
> >
> > > >>>> > > AutoPersistenceModel mappings = AutoPersistenceModel
> > > >>>> > > .MapEntitiesFromAssemblyOf<Customer>()
> > > >>>> > > ...
> > > >>>> > > .WithConvention(GetConventions)
> > > >>>> > > .MapConventionOverridesFromAssemblyOf<CustomerMap>();
> >
> > > >>>> > > I'll be including this approach in the next release of S#arp
> > > >>>> > > Architecture which leverages Fluent NHibernate. Hope this
> helps!
> >
> > > >>>> > > Billy McCafferty
> >
> > > >>>> > > On Feb 9, 9:03 am, Steven Harman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > Being one of the folks currently using the
> AutoPersistenceModel in
> > > >>>> an
> > > >>>> > > > unconventional (or rather, just unexpected) manner, I
> suppose I
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>> > > speak
> > > >>>> > > > up in favor of allowing, and suggesting, that class-specific
> > > >>>> convention
> > > >>>> > > > overrides be split out into their own auto mappings files.
> I'm on
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent NHibernate" 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/fluent-nhibernate?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
