One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So yes,
we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other features
of NH we don't currently support.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Thank you for your answer.
> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> Regards,
> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the first
> link
> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So yes,
> we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other features
> of NH we don't currently support.
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> Thank you for your answer.
>> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
>> Regards,
>> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the first
>> link
>> > is the way to go in the meantime.
>> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
> probably not.
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <hudson.akri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So yes,
> > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other features
> > of NH we don't currently support.
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >> Thank you for your answer.
> >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> >> Regards,
> >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the first
> >> link
> >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame that
> we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
> On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
> > probably not.
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <hudson.akri...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So yes,
> > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other
> features
> > > of NH we don't currently support.
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Paul,
> > >> Thank you for your answer.
> > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> > >> Regards,
> > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the
> first
> > >> link
> > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
> > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
> > >> > > -
> > >>http://merbla.blogspot.com/2009/02/fluent-nhibernate-with-stored.html,
> > >> > > mixed configuration, I don't like it very much because is not very
> > >> > > 'fluent'
> > >> > > -
> > I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame that
> > we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
> > On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
> > > probably not.
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <hudson.akri...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So yes,
> > > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other
> > features
> > > > of NH we don't currently support.
> > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > >> Thank you for your answer.
> > > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the
> > first
> > > >> link
> > > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
> > > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
> > > >> > > -
> > > >>http://merbla.blogspot.com/2009/02/fluent-nhibernate-with-stored.html,
> > > >> > > mixed configuration, I don't like it very much because is not very
> > > >> > > 'fluent'
> > > >> > > -
I'm in the process of reviewing your patch, but I'm a bit of a noob when it
comes to using NH with stored procedures so I'm going to have to ask what
may be a dumb question...
Why do you pass the operation type as a string? From what I can tell of the
NH mappings schema, the only valid values are "sql-insert", "sql-update",
"sql-delete", and "sql-delete-all". If thats a case, wouldn't it be better
to use an enum, such as:
My concern is that by having the user type in the string, you are requiring
them to have good knowledge of HBM XML, which is something that FNH attempts
to avoid!
Otherwise it looks good! Once we've got this sorted out, I'll write a couple
of tests to demonstrate the fluent interface and get it into the trunk asap.
> > > I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame that
> > > we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
> > > On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
> > > > probably not.
> > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <
> hudson.akri...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So
> yes,
> > > > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other
> > > features
> > > > > of NH we don't currently support.
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > >> Thank you for your answer.
> > > > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the
> > > first
> > > > >> link
> > > > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > Hi,
> > > > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
> > > > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
> > > > >> > > -
> I'm in the process of reviewing your patch, but I'm a bit of a noob when it
> comes to using NH with stored procedures so I'm going to have to ask what
> may be a dumb question...
> Why do you pass the operation type as a string? From what I can tell of the
> NH mappings schema, the only valid values are "sql-insert", "sql-update",
> "sql-delete", and "sql-delete-all". If thats a case, wouldn't it be better
> to use an enum, such as:
> My concern is that by having the user type in the string, you are requiring
> them to have good knowledge of HBM XML, which is something that FNH attempts
> to avoid!
> Otherwise it looks good! Once we've got this sorted out, I'll write a couple
> of tests to demonstrate the fluent interface and get it into the trunk asap.
> Thanks,
> Paul Batum
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, FrankM <maodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame that
> > > > we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
> > > > On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
> > > > > probably not.
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <
> > hudson.akri...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So
> > yes,
> > > > > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other
> > > > features
> > > > > > of NH we don't currently support.
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > > >> Thank you for your answer.
> > > > > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the
> > > > first
> > > > > >> link
> > > > > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
> > > > > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
> > > > > >> > > -
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM, FrankM <maodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Paul, You are right, this is a very good improment I should
> add. I'll change it to
> SqlInsert(INSERT_SP);
> once I back to work. then send you another patch? I just figured out
> how to do generationTest for my part.
> This solution doesn't cover retrieve. For reading data from SP, please
> refer to Rob's way.
> I know SP is bad, but some developers like me have to work on a legacy
> database.
> On 11月6日, 上午5时08分, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>> I'm in the process of reviewing your patch, but I'm a bit of a noob when it
>> comes to using NH with stored procedures so I'm going to have to ask what
>> may be a dumb question...
>> Why do you pass the operation type as a string? From what I can tell of the
>> NH mappings schema, the only valid values are "sql-insert", "sql-update",
>> "sql-delete", and "sql-delete-all". If thats a case, wouldn't it be better
>> to use an enum, such as:
>> My concern is that by having the user type in the string, you are requiring
>> them to have good knowledge of HBM XML, which is something that FNH attempts
>> to avoid!
>> Otherwise it looks good! Once we've got this sorted out, I'll write a couple
>> of tests to demonstrate the fluent interface and get it into the trunk asap.
>> Thanks,
>> Paul Batum
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, FrankM <maodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame that
>> > > > we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
>> > > > On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near future
>> > > > > probably not.
>> > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <
>> > hudson.akri...@gmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH. So
>> > yes,
>> > > > > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple other
>> > > > features
>> > > > > > of NH we don't currently support.
>> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> Hi Paul,
>> > > > > >> Thank you for your answer.
>> > > > > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
>> > > > > >> Regards,
>> > > > > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so the
>> > > > first
>> > > > > >> link
>> > > > > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
>> > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > > Hi,
>> > > > > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
>> > > > > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
>> > > > > >> > > -
I've recieved another patch from Frank and incorporated it into my branch
along with some other minor changes I made. Its now available on my dev
branch <http://github.com/paulbatum/fluent-nhibernate/tree/dev>, and should
be in the trunk in a few days.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:39 AM, FrankM <maodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Paul, You are right, this is a very good improment I should
> add. I'll change it to
> SqlInsert(INSERT_SP);
> once I back to work. then send you another patch? I just figured out
> how to do generationTest for my part.
> This solution doesn't cover retrieve. For reading data from SP, please
> refer to Rob's way.
> I know SP is bad, but some developers like me have to work on a legacy
> database.
> On 11月6日, 上午5时08分, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> > I'm in the process of reviewing your patch, but I'm a bit of a noob when
> it
> > comes to using NH with stored procedures so I'm going to have to ask what
> > may be a dumb question...
> > Why do you pass the operation type as a string? From what I can tell of
> the
> > NH mappings schema, the only valid values are "sql-insert", "sql-update",
> > "sql-delete", and "sql-delete-all". If thats a case, wouldn't it be
> better
> > to use an enum, such as:
> > My concern is that by having the user type in the string, you are
> requiring
> > them to have good knowledge of HBM XML, which is something that FNH
> attempts
> > to avoid!
> > Otherwise it looks good! Once we've got this sorted out, I'll write a
> couple
> > of tests to demonstrate the fluent interface and get it into the trunk
> asap.
> > Thanks,
> > Paul Batum
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, FrankM <maodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'd like to voice my support for this to be added. It is a shame
> that
> > > > > we have to mix and match both approaches currently.
> > > > > On Oct 8, 2:09 am, James Gregory <jagregory....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "Near future" may not be the case though. Future perhaps, near
> future
> > > > > > probably not.
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Hudson Akridge <
> > > hudson.akri...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > One of the ongoing goals of FNH has always been parity with NH.
> So
> > > yes,
> > > > > > > we're planning on adding this feature in. Along with a couple
> other
> > > > > features
> > > > > > > of NH we don't currently support.
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Calin <calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > > > >> Thank you for your answer.
> > > > > > >> Are you planning to add this in the near future ?
> > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > >> On Oct 7, 1:39 pm, Paul Batum <paul.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > Yeah we don't have any support for stored procedures yet so
> the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > >> link
> > > > > > >> > is the way to go in the meantime.
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Calin <
> calinusw...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > Hi,
> > > > > > >> > > Does Fluent support mapping store procedures ?
> > > > > > >> > > I've found 2 possibilities:
> > > > > > >> > > -
|
