Yes I did, as a general approach I still prefer hbm with intellisense +hbm2net. But I'm thinking to have the attributes alternative reliable would be interesting, this is the reason I'm asking.
On Jun 6, 2:06 pm, Dario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Have you tried ConfORM? I think you should give it a try. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:49 AM, FaticaLabs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > I join the discussion just to extend the question: I really would liek > > to have back again an attribute based mapping strategy, maybe with > > some convention over configuration addition, and I would like to start > > to work on it. > > What is the point now with the standard Mapping Attributes ? Are they > > still mantained ? If not would be a problem if I try to mantain it > > myself ( and make it grow in the direction I said) ? > > If you accept my contribution would you suggest me to start with the > > new mapping by code features ? In some of my experiments I'm trying to > > just use the standard Hbm* classes, do you change these low level > > classes in the future ? > > -- > Dario Quintana -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NHibernate Contrib - Development Group" 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/nhcdevs?hl=en.
