Ok, I thought about another possibility, thing on SchemaExport. _Maybe_ it is useful to have it explicitly on SchemaExport, but _maybe_. I don't have any idea here :)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Will Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > It is done in each mapping file, so you don't need to supply a list to > SchemaExport. The export code already excludes classes that are not mapped > to physical tables, so I simply added a conditional there for IsExportable. > Was actually simpler than I thought it would be. > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Tuna Toksöz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> How does it play in SchemaExport tool, does it now have a list to be >> excluded/included, or get it right from the Configuration object? >> >> Otherwise, it sounds great to me. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Will Shaver <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> A while back I asked about means to exclude a table from the schema >>> export. As this wasn't possible, I've now added it to my version of the >>> trunk. Before I commit I wanted to run it by people. Currently I have it set >>> up as follows: >>> >>> Tables are included by default. (As before.) >>> >>> Tables mapped as: >>> >>> < >>> class name="Products" exportable="false"> >>> ... >>> >>> Will not be published in either the 'Drop Table' or the 'Create Table' >>> commands from the schema export tool. This solves Jira issue 1274. I have >>> this working including the modification to the xsd/Hbm.generated.cs files. >>> Is this an acceptable means of excluding certain classes from export? For >>> reference, the reason for doing this could include mapping Views, tables >>> from a different project, tables with existing data to be preserved etc. >>> >>> Your .02c would be useful. >>> >>> -Will >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Tuna Toksöz >> http://tunatoksoz.com >> >> Typos included to enhance the readers attention! >> >> > -- Tuna Toksöz http://tunatoksoz.com Typos included to enhance the readers attention!
