On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 15:32, Markus Ostenried wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 15:15, Jiri Cincura wrote:
>> As nobody else replied I've added DNET-301 and DNET-302 tickets into
>> tracker. And I'll implement these later. It's breaking any existing
>> applications, so it shouldn't bother not inte
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 15:15, Jiri Cincura wrote:
> As nobody else replied I've added DNET-301 and DNET-302 tickets into
> tracker. And I'll implement these later. It's breaking any existing
> applications, so it shouldn't bother not interested people.
"It's breaking any existing applications"
I
As nobody else replied I've added DNET-301 and DNET-302 tickets into
tracker. And I'll implement these later. It's breaking any existing
applications, so it shouldn't bother not interested people.
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (CTO x2develop.com)
http://blog.cincura.net/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com
-
Somebody else?
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (CTO x2develop.com)
http://blog.cincura.net/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com
--
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data center
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 01:55, Daniel Rail wrote:
> What happens if someone uses another type for bools? As an example, I
As far as there's a default conversion to .NET bool, it's OK.
> usually use CHAR(1) with the values "T" and "F". If it can be
This will not work. .NET recognizes True and Fa
Hi,
At December-30-09, 2:40 PM, Jiri Cincura wrote:
> Hi *,
> I was thinking about supporting broader variety of datatypes (from
> .NET) in EF for mapping. We already had a request for direct guid
> support and since beginning we have (manual) support for bools.
> Unfortunately neither of these
Hi *,
I was thinking about supporting broader variety of datatypes (from
.NET) in EF for mapping. We already had a request for direct guid
support and since beginning we have (manual) support for bools.
Unfortunately neither of these is available directly in FB, hence
there's set of "standard" wor
