> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:22, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
> Behalf
>
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:58, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 2) it's doing work that's unnecessary, as you're
> testing work
> > which
> > can be done by a machine which doesn't make mistakes.
> >
> > Did you read the part where I say this is autogenerated?
>
>
> Generated by what exactly?
>
> A script.
which grew on the ScriptTree? Or did you write it yourself? Another
part of a chain, which can fail or contain bugs.
> > > How would FNH help me here?
> >
> > it at least makes sure names etc. match.
> >
> > That's what the first test is for.
>
>
> which runs at runtime, and you catch the errors thus after
> compilation. I don't see the 'benefit' of errors which are only
catchable
> OUTSIDE compilation cycles.
>
> Test is not runtime. We seem to have a fundamentally different
undestanding
> of what the build process is.
Apparently.
Luckily I'm just a salesman writing micky mouse apps, eh? ;)
> > > ...Except FNH does not have a "validation pipeline". It
> relies on
> NH's XML
> > > input.
> >
> > pipeline == code generation engine. So the same input
> always
> > generates the same XML. This is a good thing because you
then
> just
> have to
> > focus on the input.
> >
> > I've said it 100 times in this thred: what's the value in a 1-1
> > "generation"???????????
> > I don't need a C# -> XML "generator", I can write XML myself.
>
> You can't, actually. You're human, you WILL make mistakes. A
format
> which is compile time checked and which is used as input for
generating XML
> is superior, as you already catch the cruft you have to test for at
runtime.
>
>
> XML is human readable, and machine writable. Just because you
can
> type it in some editor doesn't mean you should.
>
> XML is neither less nor more human readable/writable than C#.
right. Because it comes with a proper compiler, as C# does?
> Forgive me if I prefer IDEs that assist me with writing text to visual
tools
> like the one you sell. I am more productive with the former.
'you sell' ? Like the one you 'wrote' would have been more
appropriate. I'm not selling anything, I only designed and wrote it from
scratch. Like you did too. Oh wait...
> > auto-mapping... ah, isn't that the mechanism which is
> used by
> people
> > who are so against db-first, but at the same time are doing
> just
> that?
> >
> > WHAT? 8-O
> > Automapping is model-first runtime code generation.
>
>
> oh? so, when you change some classes, it will... work on your
> DB?
> Oh, you have to trash the db, so how are you going to 'maintain'
> things in
> production then?
>
> Change scripts.
yeah, those written by hand after carefully examining by hand what
changes you made? Or by relying on diff tools which compare DDL SQL scripts
however they always fall flat on their face when they have to deal with
renames, type + renames, field moves, multiple fk + field changes, those?
FB
>
> Diego
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
