I'm sorry... my fault."validate" is the right value for the new attribute.

2008/12/15 Will Shaver <[email protected]>

>
> Because the tool and the method are called 'validate' instead of
> 'verify' I am going to go with 'validate' as the xml keyword.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tuna Toksöz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Verify is a newly added tool. SchemaValidator is the name, in Tools
> > namespace.
> > And yes ValidateSchema is what is used in that.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Will Shaver <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, am doing the work to switch this over now based on your feedback.
> >>
> >> Update, export and drop are easy to implement and I think I have those
> >> done and working. I'm writing test cases to make sure.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'verify'? Do you mean Configuration.cs Like 1985
> >> -> ValidateSchema?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> > Related to this issue we have probably something else...
> >> > Do someone can check if catalog+schema is well supported in each
> >> > schema-action ?
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > 2008/12/13 Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am inclined to agree with this suggestionl; I had the same thought
> >> >> when
> >> >> reading this thread: what about the rest of the other schema-related
> >> >> ops?
> >> >> It would be great if we had a more extensible approach to this (as
> you
> >> >> are
> >> >> proposing here) that would also allow for easily adding support for
> any
> >> >> MORE
> >> >> schema-related ops that might be introduced in the future too.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, I think it would be great to get something like this into NH --
> >> >> the
> >> >> awkwardness of handling mapped view during schema-gen has been a
> >> >> nuisance I
> >> >> have battled with on several projects (and we have dealt with it by
> >> >> using
> >> >> custom sql in the create/drop sections of the mappings but this
> always
> >> >> felt
> >> >> like a hack).  This approach (Will's combined with Fabio's
> suggestion)
> >> >> seems
> >> >> much more elegant.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Steve B.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I Will.
> >> >>> We have various tools involving the schema:
> >> >>> - Export
> >> >>> - Drop
> >> >>> - Update
> >> >>> - Verify
> >> >>> What about something like the follow:
> >> >>> <classe name="Something" schema-action="export, drop, update,
> verify">
> >> >>> The schema-action attribute can work like the "cascade" attribute as
> a
> >> >>> multiple choice.
> >> >>> All possible values of schema-action will be: none, all, export,
> drop,
> >> >>> update, verify
> >> >>> Default value is : all
> >> >>> Thought ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2008/12/12 Will Shaver <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Fabio Maulo
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Fabio Maulo
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tuna Toksöz
> > http://tunatoksoz.com
> >
> > Typos included to enhance the readers attention!
> >
> >
>



-- 
Fabio Maulo

Reply via email to