The XML I sent is one possible answer to Brand's question. Brand, if you want adjust your domain go ahead and I'll show you the new XML mapping (without touch ConfORM mapping). For example one possible change is transform ClientOrderProduct in a entity with its POID.
2010/4/12 Tom Bushell <[email protected]> > > > On Apr 12, 4:42 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > well... Brand should change its domain but to fit NH (for collection) and > > the DynamicProxy-system (for lazy-loading he must declare "virtual") > > Thanks for the clarification - even after working with them a few > months, it's not always clear to me what is required by NH, and what > is specific to FNH. > > So the upshot is that Brad would have to make most of the same changes > whether he used ConfORM or FNH. > > > He absolutely does not need to change its domain to fit the > mapping-system. > > The only additional change needed with FNH would be to add the Id > members, probably by inheriting from an Entity base class. I like the > ConfORM approach a little better in this one case, but - IMO, at least > - the FNH approach to Ids is a very small price to pay. It's hardly a > major change to the domain classes. > > BTW, didn't mean to hijack Brad's question...anyone interested in > moving this discussion to it's own thread? > > -Tom > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nhusers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > > -- Fabio Maulo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en.
