Comments on: Major revamp of WilsonORWrapper coming

By: brian

brian — Tue, 15 May 2007 19:20:33 +0000

Everything moving forward should work with ASP.Net and Windows Forms applications. In fact, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t work in Windows Forms applications right now (I have used them in such in the past).

By: CBiggerstaff

CBiggerstaff — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:08:52 +0000

Thank you for bringing life back to the WORM templates. I’ve finally got a new project where I can pick a new framework to work with and have decided to go with yours coming from PWelter’s. I’ve been generating code in the latest WORM versions I’ve found and yours is at least well documented (in comparison) and looks to have some momentum.
My new project will have windows and asp parts. Please consider windows applications when adding new functionality (where possible – at least try not to break windows application options..). I mention this because you have discussed and are discussing again a caching addition which in the past you had just mentioned along with asp. I’d be disappointed if that functionality would break generated code working with windows applications – plus it’d be nice if the caching app worked in both environments.

Thank you for taking the initiative to get things rolling again!

By: brian

brian — Tue, 08 May 2007 18:31:24 +0000

Glad you worked it out — please let me know your feedback on the wrapper!

And yes.. the Wrapper is .Net 2.0-only.

By: Nikos

Nikos — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:08:52 +0000

It seems I was using the old WilsonOrMapper.dll with no support for Generics. It is now working as expected.

By: Nikos

Nikos — Mon, 07 May 2007 13:00:43 +0000

Hello there, I’m trying to compile the WilsonORwrapper but I’ m getting several errors like the one below:

The non-generic type ‘Wilson.ORMapper.OPathQuery’ cannot be used with type arguments

Do you have any idea what this may be?

By: brian

brian — Sun, 06 May 2007 15:28:37 +0000

I will probably keep up with them, though the full scope of changes implemented in the WilsonORWrapper will probably not be carried over — though I can’t rule it out altogether.

Once I update the wrapper, I will probably look back at the basic templates and merge some changes.

I understand the desire to avoid dependency, but dependency isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There’s certainly no reason to avoid dependencies just for the sake of avoiding them — unless you have a specific reason to do so (i.e. security, etc.), and if you did, I’d be interested hearing about them in order to address them in the wrapper project.

By: David

David — Sat, 05 May 2007 03:56:11 +0000

Are you still maintaining your original “DataMapper” templates? I really like those and I’m not convinced about advantages of the new approach (packaging that couple of classes into one or two separate assemblies).
I still prefer building my own Data.Entity.dll and Data.Service.dll without any other dependency (expect WilsonORM of course).

Thanks,
David.