yes, i read it. I simply provided an example of why I, and possibly others, use and like FNH. Did you read my reply? Did you look at my 1 line of the C# code segment versus the generated xml? With this, i really wouldn't need your "1 line long" test since this one line provides enough confidence that the xml is going to be correct without extra tests. This simple line is one less thing that I have to worry about. It reduces one less edge for me while I code.
I know the edge, NH and xml, is still there since FNH still produces xml, but i at least I don't have to play around with xml. If a user didn't have tests, or even your "1 line long" test, that user could still be fairly confident that this middle layer is producing the correct xml. I hope you can see the use case for FNH even if you don't agree with it. Some people, like myself, like to remove some layers even if it means I add others. It's no different than using VisualStudio versus Notepad or NCommon versus straight NH or some other tools. You're comfortable with playing around in the xml, I don't see the need nor do i want to be bothered with it. There's no right or wrong and no real need to continue beating this, IMHO, dead horse. <http://www.goenglish.com/BeatADeadHorse.asp> cliff On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you read the part of my email that you left out? > The test is already there. It's 1 line long. I don't have to do _anything_ > To rename, I press Ctrl-R+R, and it will find both code and XML references. > > Diego > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 19:39, cliff vaughn <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Diego >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > If anyone can tell me how using FNH will provide more validation than >> > that, >> > I'll start using it now :-) >> > Moreover, why do some people think that this: >> > Property(x => x.TheData).Column("the_data"); >> > is "safer" or "more static" (?) than: >> > <property name="TheData" column="the_data"/> >> > ...considering the former just produces the latter? >> >> If i don't have to change column names, and I almost never do, the >> benefit for me is I can write just >> >> Property( x=>x.TheData) >> >> and know 100% that this is going to work due to the compile time >> checks. I don't need a test to validate, although i'm sure i'll them. >> This is a lot more refactoring friendly with just VS. >> >> -- >> thanks >> >> cliff >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- thanks cliff -- 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.
