i tried to go with named parameters.... before you know it you have to touch a shitload of files due to all the changes that are required :s
and it's not just a lot of changes within methods, you have to change _a lot_ of signatures as well, which leads to another shitload of changes that's why i went back to the bookkeeping approach :s On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Tuna Toksöz <[email protected]> wrote: > agreed. I also wondered why is that Parameter is a plain object which > doens't have any metadata. > Parameter issue may be solved with named parameters but the thing is > criteria api may need a change which i don't know how deep. > > > Tuna Toksöz > http://tunatoksoz.com > > Typos included to enhance the readers attention! > > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Davy Brion <[email protected]>wrote: > >> for NH 2.2 (or later), we really should change the way we deal with >> parameters in general... there are plenty of places in the code where we >> need parameter-related info, and we typically only pass the info related to >> that specific part of the code. It would be much easier if we would keep >> all parameter related info in the Parameter class, and just always pass >> those instances around IMHO. >> > > -- Davy Brion http://davybrion.com
