![nhibernate mapproxy nhibernate mapproxy](https://www.codegrepper.com/codeimages/javascript-render-twig-template.png)
It essentially becomes another layer of encapsulation. This is what I do with Silverlight applications, my ViewModels take an EF object or DTO and then add OnProp change - the exposed properties of this object modify the EF or DTO object directly which is eventually returned by the WCF service to be reattached and saved. That is, create an object which has-a EF object and exposes only the properties that you need as well as extends the object with other methods. One approach would be to "bootstrap" the EF object.
Nhibernate mapproxy update#
Is using the same POCO object for this list a bad idea? How can I update this object later in a context? This puts you in a good place to make improvements on your schema easily instead of simply replacing xml configuration with c# class map configuration.Is storing Entity Framework models bad practice? - c# I have a user object which I load when a user sends a login request - and I'd like to add them to a list of authenticated users. So why not choose today to begin introducing sensible conventions to your data model? Use auto mapping to map new tables and tables that get refactored to the new convention based schema. In fact anything you can do in a class map you can do with an override. Notice that the auto mapping override looks surprisingly like a class map. Mapping.Map(x => x.Type, "SecurityType") ĪutoMap.AssemblyOf(new AutomappingConfiguration()) Mapping.Map(x => x.Name, "SecurityName") Public void Override(AutoMapping mapping) public class SecurityOverride : IAutoMappingOverride
![nhibernate mapproxy nhibernate mapproxy](https://www.ndepend.com/Sample-Reports/OnNHibernate/NDependReportFiles2/VisualNDependView.png)
For each of the types that do not map cleanly you can provide an override like this. And I completely sympathize with inheriting a messy database schema. Public void Accept(IAcceptanceCriteria criteria)Ĭriteria.Expect(x => x.Name.StartsWith("foo")) īy far the most common response I got to my twitter sniping was the "My database is special and I have to use class maps to map it because it's so weird" excuse. Var tableName = "[".FormatWith(schema, typeName) Public void Apply(IClassInstance instance) public class TableNameConvention : IClassConvention I then added the following convention to my automapping. I decided to partition my domain model using the same schema structure and put my entities in different namespaces. In a recent project that I was on, the DBA used schemas heavily. public class AutomappingConfiguration : DefaultAutomappingConfigurationįNH comes with a set of sensible defaults but they can be easily replaced with conventions that better match your particular database schema. Simply add this override to your configuration. Maybe for some reason you want to be the property named Guid. By default FNH will assume any property with the name Id is the unique identifier for that type. There are several methods that can be overridden globally via the automapping configuration like this. Type.GetInterfaces().Any(y => y = typeof(IEntity)) ĪutoMap.AssemblyOf(new AutomappingConfiguration()) Public override bool ShouldMap(Type type) public class AutomappingConfiguration : DefaultAutomappingConfiguration We can specify that by providing an implementation of DefaultAutoMappingConfiguration like this. But let's say that you want to constrain the mapping to only types in that assembly that implement the interface IEntity or are in a specific namespace. This will map all of the types located in the assembly containing the type IEntity. Our mapping then becomes as simple as this. The real power with FNH is when we start moving toward convention over configuration. We have simply avoided having to soil our fingers with the act of typing xml. What have we gained by doing this? The ClassMap is just as terse as the xml. Īll of this xml goo can be replaced with a simple ClassMap that allows you to take advantage of intellisense (which technically you don't lose with hbm files if you have your project setup right). The primary reason people use Fluent NHibernate is to get away from xml based mapping files that look like this. And I wanted to expand on that a bit and share my reasoning. This of course was a snarky in the moment tweet as is the title of this post, but I do actually think that auto mapping is the best usage pattern for Fluent NHibernate. After some internal conversations at work, I tweeted that using ClassMaps with Fluent NHibernate is the the wrong way to approach the problem.