That's it. :)
On Feb 10, 11:19 am, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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-configchunk 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>
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
