Great, good to hear. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Billy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nice work James, I'll include this in the pending #Arch RC. > > Billy > > On Feb 10, 4:11 pm, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's official, I've implemented the generic configuration overrides (now > > called IAutoMappingAlteration instead of Chunk), and the more specific > > IMappingOverride<T>. > > You can read about both on the wiki, > > overrides<http://wiki.fluentnhibernate.org/show/AutoMappingOverrides> > > and > > configuration alterations< > http://wiki.fluentnhibernate.org/show/AutoMappingConfigurationAlterat...> > > . > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:33 PM, James Gregory <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > Well the Chunk isn't an override, it doesn't override anything. It > allows > > > you to configure the model separately, whether you choose to override > > > something defined elsewhere is your decision. The chunk allows you to > > > configure the model in separate "chunks", not in one fell-swoop. > > > The IMappingOverride on the other hand is an override, hence why it's > in > > > the name. > > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Billy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
