Heh, I have to admit that was the one thing that I didn't like either. Technical aesthetics. ;)
Why not a name which describes more what it's purpose is; e.g., ConventionOverrideFor<>, AutoMapOverrideFor<> or something like that? Billy On Feb 10, 5:00 am, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > ...and there's me thinking chunk was an amusing name ;) > ConfigPart, Configurer, Config, ConfigUnit, any ideas? > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Jimit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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-configchunkstuffhttp:// > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
