Linq to Sql compared to NHibernate mapping options -


I am a very newbie and I have to dig this case to write some college articles so that I need some bootstrap .

Here and there I have read that the Managing domain model provides NHibernate more flexibility (compared to L2S) in the database. Can you write some signals that I know?

One thing to consider is that L2S "does this for you" in a very large DBML file By creating an object you can work with your objects by making partial classes, but if you want to try to make any changes to the DBML files, you get spoiled because the L2S will either overwrite your changes or even manually Any changes will have to be implemented from .

So you get stuck in a way because changing dBML is a terrible idea, but this is because what you can do in terms of the properties of the names of your objects. A classic example is the case of using those enzymes that are stored in your database as intus. Say you have user-type as an ANM in your app, so you can store it in your user table, perhaps you can store it as an int column called YouTube. When you create your own DBML file, you feel good that you map the user type as an int column ... but if you want the user's property to return the user name, you can hook it to DBML. You can ... or change your naming conventions to match your ORM tool, your database ... are not a good choice.

While NHibernate is just an xml-based mapping between your objects and your database, which gives you much more flexibility as per your choice to set things up.

The second thing to look at is the many-to-many relationships and table-per-subclass / table-per-square mapping that are referred to here:

< P> I do not think L2S can handle table-per-sub-class relationships.

Hope this helps,

- Maximum


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

python - Overriding the save method in Django ModelForm -

html - CSS autoheight, but fit content to height of div -

qt - How to prevent QAudioInput from automatically boosting the master volume to 100%? -