-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider renaming MightyORM base class #1
Comments
Thank you for your interest in the project, @brgrz (Marko)! You are right about the .NET naming conventions. Mostly I find them useful. In this one case I find them overly restrictive. MySQL is not really MySql, SQL Server is not really SqlServer, and As regards Which is why I prefer (let's say) |
Marko, Let me know if you're still badly unconvinced by this? (As I'm probably planning to close it.) As an update, my naming is based on the fact that If you give it a table name (explicitly or implicitly via the class name of a child class) then many (but still far from all) of the things it can do are related to it working as a (dynamic) model of that table. But even if you don't provide a table name, you can do lots useful database access with the class anyway. Since Mighty now supports generics (i.e. strongly typed as well as Mike |
I guess that makes sense. |
Consider renaming MightyORM base class to something more along the lines of dynamic model / dynamic entity.
First, MightyORM name does not follow C# naming guidelines (should be MightyOrm).
Second, when doing "new MightyORM()" I feel like I'm creating new UoW/context instance (which of course we are not because this isn't UoW).
Massive had DynamicModel and it expressed exactly what it represented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: