WilsonORM fluent mappings

[Fregas]

All,

This is in regard to my previous post:
http://groups.google.com/group/wilsonormapper/browse_thread/thread/5072445728d1061d

I think what i've decided to do is this. I would eventually like to
start a separate product, so that its not left with OPath and things
that don't make sense in a modern ORM. However, I'm starting with the
mappings and making a fluent interface like NHibernate has. I'll push
these out to as part of the Wilson ORM as a patch or whatever so the
community can benefit. IF i can finish that (and so far its coming
along pretty nicely) then I'll examine whether I have the time and
energy to fork a new project with LINQ, components, dictionaries,
alternate inheritance schemes, etc.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Craig

[Brian DeMarzo]

Suggestion...

1) We tag the current SVN -- likely the last release that will support
things prior to .Net 2.0
2) We create a branch where you can work on your fluent interface
3) Eventually, we merge the branch back with the trunk

If this sounds good, give me your Google Code login and I'll give you
commit rights and set things up.


- b

On Dec 29, 10:25 am, Fregas <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>

> This is in regard to my previous post:http://groups.google.com/group/wilsonormapper/browse_thread/thread/50...

[fregas baratis]

I'm actually working in my own SVN repository but I don't mind committing to that branch when I'm all done.  Or do you want my code changes as I go along?

Craig

[Brian DeMarzo]

The more commits people see, the more they can comment/contribute.

I've been working alot with FluentNH (and NH in general) lately, so I may be able to toss in a few ideas as well if I see a work-in-progress.

Are your changes to teh core WilsonORMapper project, or are you creating a separate project? Though there are merits to a separate project, I think that strays from one of the WORM benefits (single DLL).


 - b

[fregas baratis]

No they are in the main WORM project, but I have a separate project for Unit Tests.

Craig

[fregas baratis]

Also, I can switch my stuff to work out of google code if you like.  Do you want my unit tests as well?

Craig

[Brian DeMarzo]

>> Do you want my unit tests as well?

Surely you jest. :) OF COURSE!

Perhaps your unit test project could be exclusively for the fluent interface -- this will allow us to separate things a bit, at least in the test projects, even if everything is in the whole WORM project. (At least unit test projects will be a bit more concise.)

Example... if your fluent is WilsonORMapper.Mappings.Fluent [or whatever they are] ... name your test project WilsonORMapper.Mappings.Fluent

Considering there are (no?) unit tests for the current, let's keep the new stuff in a separate test project.

Make sense? I can give you SVN access right away if you want to switch over and merge (once I tag the trunk, that is).

Also -- I think we should look to remove all pre-2.0 conditions out. No sense supporting 1.1 moving forward.

Finally -- does the fluent code require 3.5 or will it work with 2.0? I have no worries making the jump to 3.5 for future development, but if we do I want to draw the line in teh sand.


 - b

[fregas baratis]

The fluent interface required adding a reference to system.core and the Linq namespace, so I think that is .NET 3.5.  I could be wrong about that as there are some 3.5 features that will work in .NET 2.0 because they are just compilation tricks.

I'll add the tests as well.  I'm using MBUnit.  I would name the test project WilsonORMapper.FluentMappings.Test or soemthing like that, so that its obviously a unit testing project and not part of WORM itself.

My gmail account is fre...@gmail.com.  Is that all you need to give me access?

Craig

[Brian DeMarzo]

All sounds good to me. I never used MBUnit (I'm an NUnit fan and an MSTest hater), but this is as good a time as any for me to start with MBUnit. :)

Let me set up everything (tag the trunk, etc.) -- once I do I'll give you commit access (probably tonight).

Trunk will be tagged with the latest WORM version number, which will be the end of 1.1/2.0 support. Maybe that'll force us to start LINQing.

[fregas baratis]

Yeah the real killer with WORM for me at least is the lack of LINQ support and the lack of pre-fetching relations/properties.  So maybe linq will enable us to do that elegantly.

Craig

[Brian DeMarzo]

You should be all set. I tagged the trunk and created the
FluentMappings branch.

BTW -- a little namespace thought. Perhaps we should do:

--> WilsonORMapper.Mappings.Fluent

This will allow us to keep generic (fluent or non-fluent) mappings in
the Mappings namespace. Say one day we also do attribute-mapping, we
can then:

--> WilsonORMapper.Mappings.Attributes

Or, our mappings file generator can be abstracted to work with the
fluent or attributes...

--> WilsonORMapper.Mappings.Generator

Hopefully you get the idea.


- b