Hello, If memory serves, the default, unspecified behavior of Nullable(), or Not.Nullable(), is indeterminate, or otherwise depends on the underlying database? Would someone mind clarifying the nature of this behavior?
I am currently working with a code base which, studying the code, implies that Not Null database/mapping behavior is the default, but I have also seen some code where I seriously question the veracity of making an assumption like that. I have scoured Google and various blogs, and there are a lot of topics around nullability, but none of which seem to discuss this issue at its root behavior. Similarly, reading the NHibernate wikis themselves, the topic of nullability is silent regarding the default behavior, but it does seem to suggest prefer being declarative when specifying the mapping, which I am all for. Generally for such things, I like to either specify them consistently, conventionally, or declare them at the moment of the mapping to be sure. At any rate, I need to know from an NHibernate / Fluent perspective. Thank you... Best regards, Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fluent NHibernate" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fluent-nhibernate+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fluent-nhibernate. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
