ibatis-user-cs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clinton Begin" <clinton.be...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Domain classes from multiple assemblies...
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:44:54 GMT
Haha...very funny.  :-)  But true.

Having now read all about fully qualified type names, I agree with leaving
it the way it is.

Cheers,
Clinton

On 7/17/06, Gilles Bayon <ibatis.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We will not change it. It is a standard when you represent type, all
> framework use it.
>
> Master Clinton is discovered .NET World
>
> Padawan Gilles, :-)
>
> On 7/17/06, Jeremy Gray <jgray@siberra.com> wrote:
>
> >   The comma separation isn't weird. It's bog-standard in the .net world
> > because there's a lot more to a type than its name, especially once you
> > account for things like versions, cultures, etc. #2 may be "verbose, but
> > descriptive" but would also leave you wondering "Uhh, where do I put the
> > culture?"
> >
> >
> >
> > From trying to pick up this thread midstream I'm not sure if you guys
> > were discussing a possible change or not, but if so, please stick to a
> > single attribute into which a standard type name is placed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeremy Gray
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Clinton Begin [mailto: clinton.begin@gmail.com]
> > *Sent: * Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:13 PM
> > *To:* user-cs@ibatis.apache.org
> > *Subject:* Re: Domain classes from multiple assemblies...
> >
> >
> >
> > I meant #2.  It's verbose, but descriptive.
> >
> >     <typeAlias alias="Book" type="DomainTwo.Book" assembly="DomainTwo"
> > />
> >
> > I guess the comma separated set is fine if that's what getType takes
> > anyway.....  I'll forward my horrible design soapbox comments onto
> > Microsoft.  :-)
> >
> > A better design would be Type.getType (string typeName, string
> > assemblyName).  The comma separation is just weird.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Clinton
> >
> > On 7/16/06, *Ron Grabowski* < rongrabowski@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand...do you mean:
> >
> > <typeAlias alias="Book" assembly="DomainTwo.Book, DomainTwo" />
> >
> > or:
> >
> > <typeAlias alias="Book" type="DomainTwo.Book" assembly="DomainTwo" />
> >
> > The first example isn't very .NET-ish. When .NET people talk about
> > dynamically loading a Type, they talk about it in terms of its "fully
> > qualified type name"...that's the attribute is named "type" and not
> > "assembly".
> >
> > The second example is too verbose. The Type.GetType(string) method
> > understands the namespace-dot-class-comma-space-assembly notation.
> >
> > --- Clinton Begin < clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah ha!  I see.  I was looking for something like that.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, why not just have an assembly="" attribute on
> > > the
> > > <typeAlias> element?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Clinton
> > >
> > > On 7/16/06, Gilles Bayon <ibatis.net@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just to to clarify,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <alias>
> > > >   <typeAlias alias="Document" type="DomainOne.Document, DomainOne"
> > > />
> > > >   <typeAlias alias="Book" type=" DomainTow.Book, DomainTow" />
> > > >  </alias>
> > > >
> > > > Where DomainOne and DomainTow are 2 projects which compile in
> > > DomainOne.dll
> > > > and DomainTow .dll
> > > >
> > > > Is it OK ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message