Comments on: Teaching AutoMapper about our conventions http://lostechies.com/joshuaflanagan/2010/03/19/teaching-automapper-about-our-conventions/ Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:50:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Joshua Flanagan http://lostechies.com/joshuaflanagan/2010/03/19/teaching-automapper-about-our-conventions/#comment-98 Joshua Flanagan Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:30:10 +0000 /blogs/joshuaflanagan/archive/2010/03/19/teaching-automapper-about-our-conventions.aspx#comment-98 I didn't read it as critical at all, its all valid feedback, and I pretty much agree with everything you said. The truth is, I started to go down the path of a method-chained DSL, but it makes the implementation a lot more complicated. It wasn't worth the effort to solve my problem, since I saw it as a one-off solution. I know Jimmy is re-thinking some of the underlying infrastructure to enable a better solution for the next major version of AutoMapper. My solution is just some spackle to hold us over (which is also why I didn't propose it as a patch to AM). I posted it, not because the code is impressive, but to share the idea. I didn’t read it as critical at all, its all valid feedback, and I pretty much agree with everything you said.
The truth is, I started to go down the path of a method-chained DSL, but it makes the implementation a lot more complicated. It wasn’t worth the effort to solve my problem, since I saw it as a one-off solution. I know Jimmy is re-thinking some of the underlying infrastructure to enable a better solution for the next major version of AutoMapper. My solution is just some spackle to hold us over (which is also why I didn’t propose it as a patch to AM). I posted it, not because the code is impressive, but to share the idea.

]]> By: CraigCav http://lostechies.com/joshuaflanagan/2010/03/19/teaching-automapper-about-our-conventions/#comment-97 CraigCav Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:02:09 +0000 /blogs/joshuaflanagan/archive/2010/03/19/teaching-automapper-about-our-conventions.aspx#comment-97 Hi Joshua, I've struggled with similar repetitive mappings myself and hadn't achieved a way to make my conventions explicit, so I found this a really interesting read. I'm really hoping that AutoMapper will soon be extended to natively support conventions to build mappings for type information, as although this work-around is much better than where we started, it still feels a little clunky. I guess I'd like to be able to see full, easily testable, convention classes for MapViewUrls and MapDisplayValues, rather than extension methods off of IMappingExpression. Another thing I'm thinking was that it took me longer than it should for me to figure out what was going on in the CreateMapsForSourceTypes method. Now, that might just be me being a little slow...but I couldn't figure out what the parameters were doing at a glance. I'm wondering if this method should be broken up into smaller chunks? Maybe something like: cfg.ForSourceTypes(x => x.CanBeCastTo<Entity>()) .MapToDestinationType(sourceType => Type.GetType(typeof (ListItemMethodDTO).Namespace + "." + sourceType.Name + "DTO")) .CreateMaps(map, source, destination => { map.MapViewUrls(source, destination); map.MapDisplayValues(source, destination); }); What do you think? The only other part that wasn't particularly clear (without looking at the implementation) was where exactly the source types were coming from. Hmm...Reading my comment back I sound really critical, but actually I'm just excited to see where this is going. Keep up the good work. Hi Joshua,

I’ve struggled with similar repetitive mappings myself and hadn’t achieved a way to make my conventions explicit, so I found this a really interesting read.

I’m really hoping that AutoMapper will soon be extended to natively support conventions to build mappings for type information, as although this work-around is much better than where we started, it still feels a little clunky.

I guess I’d like to be able to see full, easily testable, convention classes for MapViewUrls and MapDisplayValues, rather than extension methods off of IMappingExpression.

Another thing I’m thinking was that it took me longer than it should for me to figure out what was going on in the CreateMapsForSourceTypes method. Now, that might just be me being a little slow…but I couldn’t figure out what the parameters were doing at a glance. I’m wondering if this method should be broken up into smaller chunks? Maybe something like:

cfg.ForSourceTypes(x => x.CanBeCastTo())
.MapToDestinationType(sourceType => Type.GetType(typeof (ListItemMethodDTO).Namespace + “.” + sourceType.Name + “DTO”))
.CreateMaps(map, source, destination =>
{
map.MapViewUrls(source, destination);
map.MapDisplayValues(source, destination);
});

What do you think?

The only other part that wasn’t particularly clear (without looking at the implementation) was where exactly the source types were coming from.

Hmm…Reading my comment back I sound really critical, but actually I’m just excited to see where this is going. Keep up the good work.

]]>