tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17407535.post2883517930960191037..comments2023-04-17T09:06:54.778-05:00Comments on Learning by doing: Improved Model generation in Code GeneratorRoy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18358836279191006548noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17407535.post-67457019549956672152007-08-08T22:25:00.000-05:002007-08-08T22:25:00.000-05:00If you are only missing the [HasMany] attributes, ...If you are only missing the [HasMany] attributes, you are in good shape. I did not implement those in my model. I could do so by turning the relations around, and fetching tables that refer to ME, but I haven't done that yet. For now, if you want to maintain flexibility, and be able to re-generate at will, add these attributes to either your BIZ partial, or another partial class. Castle Roy Tatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358836279191006548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17407535.post-53804936497739213792007-08-08T20:22:00.000-05:002007-08-08T20:22:00.000-05:00Unfortunately, I have little-to-no control over my...Unfortunately, I have little-to-no control over my data model. So using naming convention to drive the generator is out of the questiong for me. Some of my systems are being written for a legacy data model and some to a data model being created by my boss (yikes!!) and a contract data modeller. That being said, I have never been fond of driving fucntionality from naming convention, for exactlyJim Reinerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13282943690826725600noreply@blogger.com