NHibernate Annotatios?

[Ricardo Peres]

Hi,

Just for curiosity, what is this NHibernate Annotations project in the
sandbox? Is it going to replace the old NHibernate Attributes?
Thanks!

RP

[Dario Quintana]

I asume is some kind of experiment looooong time ago, nevermind. 

For NHibernate mapping you should go using:

• NHibernate hbm files.
• NHibernate by code in NH 3.2
• ConfOrm
• Fluent NHibernate

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NHibernate Contrib - Development Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to nhc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nhcdevs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhcdevs?hl=en.

--
Dario Quintana

[Ricardo Peres]

OK. I thought it was something new. Thanks.

RP

On May 12, 8:20 pm, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar>
wrote:

> I asume is some kind of experiment looooong time ago, nevermind.
> For NHibernate mapping you should go using:
>

>    - NHibernate hbm files.
>    - NHibernate by code in NH 3.2
>    - ConfOrm
>    - Fluent NHibernate

[FaticaLabs]

Hi
I join the discussion just to extend the question: I really would liek
to have back again an attribute based mapping strategy, maybe with
some convention over configuration addition, and I would like to start
to work on it.
What is the point now with the standard Mapping Attributes ? Are they
still mantained ? If not would be a problem if I try to mantain it
myself ( and make it grow in the direction I said) ?
If you accept my contribution would you suggest me to start with the
new mapping by code features ? In some of my experiments I'm trying to
just use the standard Hbm* classes, do you change these low level
classes in the future ?




On May 12, 9:20 pm, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar>
wrote:

> I asume is some kind of experiment looooong time ago, nevermind.
> For NHibernate mapping you should go using:
>

>    - NHibernate hbm files.
>    - NHibernate by code in NH 3.2
>    - ConfOrm
>    - Fluent NHibernate

[Dario Quintana]

Hi, 

Have you tried ConfORM? I think you should give it a try.

Cheers

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:49 AM, FaticaLabs <felice...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi
I join the discussion just to extend the question: I really would liek
to have back again an attribute based mapping strategy, maybe with
some convention over configuration addition, and I would like to start
to work on it.
What is the point now with the standard Mapping Attributes ? Are they
still mantained ? If not would be a problem if I try to mantain it
myself ( and make it grow in the direction I said) ?
If you accept my contribution would you suggest me to start with the
new mapping by code features ? In some of my experiments I'm trying to
just use the standard Hbm* classes, do you change these low level
classes in the future ?

--
Dario Quintana

[FaticaLabs]

Yes I did, as a general approach I still prefer hbm with intellisense
+hbm2net. But I'm thinking to have the attributes alternative reliable
would be interesting, this is the reason I'm asking.

On Jun 6, 2:06 pm, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Have you tried ConfORM? I think you should give it a try.
>
> Cheers
>

[Dario Quintana]

In ConfORM, you may declare your mappings even without attributes, and if need to declare something special, like: "I want that every property with the property [Ignore] shouldn't be mapped" you may declare a pattern for that.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:17 AM, FaticaLabs <felice...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes I did, as a general approach I still prefer hbm with intellisense
+hbm2net. But I'm thinking to have the attributes alternative reliable
would be interesting, this is the reason I'm asking.

--
Dario Quintana

[FaticaLabs]

Ok Dario,
Thanks for your suggestion. That is cetainly true, but I want to try
to have something even supporting legacy DB with horrible composite
keys :)
Felix

On Jun 6, 2:27 pm, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar>
wrote:

> In ConfORM, you may declare your mappings even without attributes, and if
> need to declare something special, like: "I want that every property with
> the property [Ignore] shouldn't be mapped" you may declare a pattern for
> that.
>