Rank 2
Today, the fluent mapping besides being difficult to use, is a little confusing. About this I have been comparing your fluent mapping with other what I use too. Here's an example (I and many other developers believe it is an easier way).
public CompanyMapping()
{
Id(p => p.Id);
Map(c => c.Name);
Map(c => c.Root);
References(f => f.Company);
HasMany(f => f.Employees)
.Inverse()
.Cascade().All();
Schema("notDefaultDBO");
Table("notClassCompanyName");
}
In this way, I need to create one mapping class for each entity class, which may be a worse side.
What do you think? This would greatly facilitate.
1 Answer, 1 is accepted
Thank you for the input. I will assume that what basically bothers you is the way the mapping configuration are prepared. This is something we spend some time thinking about and settled on the current situation. Currently you can either use the prepare mappings overload to create your mapping configuration, or place them in static methods that return a MappingConfiguration object. This is certainly something that need improvement though, it should be way easier to create and store MappingConfiguration and it is in fact in our plans for the next release to working on making it easier for you to use the Fluent Mapping API.
I would again like to thank you for taking the time to share your feedback on the product. It is greatly appreciated. Do not hesitate to let us know should you face any trouble with the API, we will be more than happy to help you out any time.
Serge
the Telerik team