Fabio,
I'm sorry if my question didn't come across very well. I didn't mean
to offend.
In answer to your points above:
1) I didn't raise the defect. I commented on an existing defect in
jira.
2) I'm not asking you to do the work. I'm volunteering to submit a
patch. In fact I already have a prototype working and wanted to ask
your opinion as I am new to the NHibernate codebase.
3) I've already forked it. I'm offering to do the additional work to
make this a feature in Nibernate IF that is something you would like
included.
I fully understand all your points about the fundamental nature of
this check but why prevent people from removing that check if they
know what they are doing. The rest of the framework is really
extensible so why does this part have to be fixed? Also what about
Diego's point about making the validations injectable? NH is really
flexible in other areas.
At the end of the day I'm volunteering my effort to work with you to
create a solution for something that is a pain point for a few of your
users. If my contribution doesn't fit with your vision of where
NHibernate is going then fair enough.
Regards,
Mike
On Apr 22, 2:12 pm, Fabio Maulo <
fabioma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - The JIRA is there
> - I'm not the only one contributor
> - NH is OSS and you can fork it <=== touchable code of this century; NO
> Eliot Ness
>
> My point is:
> Because you can't touch your code you create an issue in NH.
> Because your RDBMS has a very poor pagination you create an issue in NH to
> have a workaround.
> Because your framework does not create a good XYZ you ask more work in NH
> that should be done by NH team but following your rules.
>
> and my point about about untouchable stuff is public:
http://fabiomaulo.blogspot.com/2009/06/database-eliot-ness-of-it.html
>
> If you will remove the "expectation" check anything may happen during an
> insert/update/delete and you must pray that everything is under your control
> (from optimistic-lock to a simple value of column) inside and outside the
> batcher.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Diego Jancic <
jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is it 'fundamental' ? Can't NH work without it? It looks like a
> > validation that could be easily removed.
> > I don't need it, and I think Fabio's solution is the best one, however I
> > see no reason to don't add a new feature to NH if the patch is submitted.
>
> > Maybe there's another solution: make the validations injectable, that way
> > validations can be extended or (although it's not recommended) removed.
> > Came on Fabio, be good with contributors =)
>
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:09, Fabio Maulo <
fabioma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The check of the expectation is a fundamental check.
> >> I have a proposal for you: change the stored procedure.
> >> You can't touch it ? well... to work with untouchable code is an hard
> >> living; Elliot Ness is not a guy of this century.
>