fluent-nhibernate

I am using FluentNHibernate, and I have a list of records, mapped to an SQL Server 2008 view. Dirty reads are OK with me, not locking the tables is a priority. The SQL Query inside the view, does not have any with (nolock), however, I am using the following approach... using (var txScope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Suppress, new TransactionOptions() { IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted })) { ... The reading of records from the view is done here, through Fluent NHibernate... } Does setting the isolation level at application layer to read

Entities: Team <-> TeamEmployee <-> Employee Requirements: A Team and an Employee can exist without its counterpart. In the Team-TeamEmployee relation the Team is responsible (parent) [using later a TeamRepository]. In the Employee-TeamEmployee relation the Employee is responsible (parent) [using later an EmployeeRepository]. Duplicates are not allowed. Deleting a Team deletes all Employees in the Team, if the Employee is not in another Team. Deleting an Employee deletes only a Team, if the Team does not contain no more Employees. Mapping: public class TeamMap : ClassMap<Team> { public TeamMap

What are the differences between HasOne() and References() in nhibernate? Abel HasOne creates a one-to-one mapping between tables for you. References creates a typical relational many-to-one relationship. More defined: a one-to-one relationship means that when one record exists in one table, it must (or can) have one and at most one record in the other referenced table. Example: User table and Options table (one user has one fixed set of options) a many-to-one relationship means that when one records exists in one table, it can have many related records in another table. Example: User table

Let's say your have the following table structure: ============================== | Case | ============================== | Id | int | | ReferralType | varchar(10) | +---------| ReferralId | int |---------+ | ============================== | | | | | | | ====================== ====================== ====================== | SourceA | | SourceB | | SourceC | ====================== ====================== ====================== | Id | int | | Id | int | | Id | int | | Name | varchar(50) | | Name | varchar(50) | | Name | varchar(50) | ====================== ====================== ==================

I have a base class that contains a property called IsDirty. This is used for the domain model and is not a column in the database table. When using automapping, fluent nhibernate tries to add this column to the table. A way to fix this is to put .ForTypesThatDeriveFrom<Address>(p => p.IgnoreProperty(x => x.IsDirty)) in the automapping setup. The problem is, all my entities will do this, is there a way to state this without have to add this line for every entity? If I put .ForTypesThatDeriveFrom<Entity>(p => p.IgnoreProperty(x => x.IsDirty)) , then I get an error trying to convert Entity to

I'm trying to implement multi-tenancy in an ASP.NET MVC application I have, that uses NHibernate. Though I have control over the database for multi-tenancy. I'm trying to figure out the best way to filter our database queries using NHibernate. I would like to know if there is a painless way where I can append a condition (something like WHERE InstanceID = 1 ) to every CRUD query to the DB using NHibernate. I looked at global filters. But I wasn't sure if I'm using it the right way. I tried something like this. NHibernateSession.GetDefaultSessionFactory().GetCurrentSession() .EnableFilter(

I have a table that, some of its columns are unknown at compile time. Such columns could either be of an integer value, or some Enum value. There is a table that holds all the names of such dynamic columns and also holds the column's type. This "metatable" has the following columns: DynamicColumnId (Pk) Name TypeId (Integer / Enum, as Fk from a separate table) Integer columns have the Name from this table, whereas Enum columns are Fk columns from a table that has that Name , with some modification (e.g. a "DynamicTable" prefix). The only solution I could think of for this situation is using