It looks like that is the default behavior. See the XML:
>
>
>
But I'll give that a go anyway
Nope, didn't make a difference.
On Jan 16, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Chris Marisic wrote:
>
>
> I think what you're missing is
>
> Id(x => x.Abbreviation, "StateAbbrev").GeneratedBy.A
I think what you're missing is
Id(x => x.Abbreviation, "StateAbbrev").GeneratedBy.Assigned())
On Jan 16, 3:26 pm, Brendan Erwin wrote:
> I have a working map for State (PersistenceSpecification works):
>
> namespace Clearwave.Integration.Models.Data.Payers
> {
> public class StateMap : Fl
I have a working map for State (PersistenceSpecification works):
namespace Clearwave.Integration.Models.Data.Payers
{
public class StateMap : FluentNHibernate.Mapping.ClassMap
{
public StateMap()
{
WithTable("USStates");
Id(x => x.Abbreviation,
Does fluent support mapping custom collections. In NH it looks like
this.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent
I've uploaded a patch, but it's marked as a defect. Can you change the
type?
See http://code.google.com/p/fluent-nhibernate/issues/detail?id=98
Thanks
Marco
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent NH
No problem, people often misinterpret many-to-one's as one-to-ones, so
you're not alone :)
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM, John Teague wrote:
> Thanks James, changing to References with a join fetch type did the trick.
> I can stop banging my head against the wall now :)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2
Thanks James, changing to References with a join fetch type did the trick.
I can stop banging my head against the wall now :)
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM, James Gregory wrote:
> That's not a one to one. A one to one is a relationship between two tables
> that have identical primary key value
That's not a one to one. A one to one is a relationship between two tables
that have identical primary key values, if it aint the primary key, it aint
a one-to-one. What you're after is a one-to-many, or many-to-one depending
on which way the relationship goes. HasMany or References.
On Fri, Jan 1
Can anyone tell me how (fluent-nh or otherwise) to map a one-to-one
relationship that is not based off of the primary key of the table.
I have the following schema:
Item
id_col //primary key
plinid // this is the unique fk column
ProductLineItem
plinid // primary key
No matter what I do,
Thanks Gabriel, the example you have uses two tables, not one
(allowing a fancier tree than I need), but it convinced me that I was
going in the right direction with my previous attempts.
First I got this hbm working, easily enough:
true
Hi!
I'm trying to move to Fluent NHibernate the mappings of the project
I'm working on and I've encountered some difficulties. We have used
and abused of the possibility to define external mappings like this
one:
...
That works quite well, and the BaseContent is mapped like th
At first I was determined to exclude ANY changes to my domain for the
sake of the ORM, so that was the reason for wanting the change to be
localized in the test framework. Of course, after your answer I
realized that 1) I've already made changes for the ORM (virtual), and
2) Equals will behave wei
I came across this too Gabriel and forgot to ask about it. I meant to do
some more digging, but if you're not finding the support either, then that
makes two of us. :)
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Gabriel Schenker wrote:
>
> I just realized that it is not possible to define the name of the
>
Hi, I posted an small patch on issues that allos the specification of
join inside subclass. That allows the use of "8.1.3. Table per
subclass, using a discriminator" of NHibernate 2.0.
PS: I mae an mistake when posted the patch and it is listed as an
defect, but it is really an enhancement.
--~--
You shouldn't need to do a custom Equals method, you should just be able to
override standard Equals. The proxy would be a subclass of your entity
class, so you shouldn't have any trouble with that; overriding Equals and
GetHashCode is generally the solution for this kind of issue.
On Thu, Jan 15,
I just realized that it is not possible to define the name of the
foreign key constraint on the ManyToManyPart. Thus it is not possible
to completely port e.g. the following xml-mapping to FNH
please have a look at the following post (the Node hierarchy)
http://blogs.hibernatingrhinos.com/nhibernate/archive/2008/05/14/how-to-map-a-tree-in-nhibernate.aspx
the corresponding mapping in FNH would be
public class NodeMap : ClassMap
{
public NodeMap()
{
Id
17 matches
Mail list logo
