LOL!! btw, in our tests, I didn't see somebody else than me using Loquacious configuration.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Richard Brown (gmail) < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 from me too ... especially if this means we can programmatically > write the mappings in tests too. > > *From:* Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2011 3:23 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [nhibernate-development] Mappings > > Since I ended that (long) thread with a +1 for proceeding, I will offer the > same here: +1, I *still* feel strongly that this is worth proceeding with to > incorporate into the core project. > > Clearly sooner > later so if you can do it for 3.2 I think that would be > awesome news but realistically this is important enough to get 'right' that > waiting for 3.3 isn't a bad choice either (so that there's time to take it > as slow as needed to ensure it's well-vetted / reviewed / commented upon > before its being part of a release). > > Steve Bohlen > [email protected] > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com > http://twitter.com/sbohlen > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: > >> FYI I didn't forgot this thread >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/nhibernate-development/browse_thread/thread/198cecde690b235d >> >> My intention is to use part of the work done in ConfORM. >> By "part" I mean basically the "engine" of the mapping. >> In NH the mapping will be explicit class-by-class with some hooks for >> simple matters (no Pattern/PatternAppliers as done in ConfORM). >> >> Note: I would avoid to force people to define a new class for each >> mapping; how organize mappings will be a users choice. >> >> Perhaps I can implement something for NH3.2GA release (end of April), >> perhaps I can't. >> My intention is to have the work pretty ready for NH3.3 >> >> Something to say ? >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
