I have question with using a many-to-one relationship with an
ICompositeUserType.
In the documentation for ICompositeUserType, it states that it can support
many-to-one relationships.
I am having some trouble finding examples of this. Here is my scenario
I have an Individual domain object:
Individual
{
public virtual string Id {get;set;}
public virtual Address HomeAddress{get;set;}
public virtual Address WorkAddress{get;set;}
}
and i have an Address domain object
Address
{
//no id on the address domain object
public virtual string StreetAddress{get;set;}
public virtual string City{get;set;}
public virtual string State{get;set;}
....
}
My database schema is an Individual table, and an Address table. There is
a one-to-many individual to address relationship. The address table has a
composite key of individualID and type, but we do not want to expose these
on the Address domain object. This is a legacy database that we cannot
modify.
We would like to maintain the Individual domain object with HomeAddress and
WorkAddress as seperate properties, instead of a Collection<Address>
Addresses.
We were hoping to be able to use ICompositeUserType, but we are struggling
with a way to implement it. We can't map the address table to the
individual domain object.
thank you!
matt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nhusers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
