On 28 sept. 2010, at 17:53, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
On 28 sept. 2010, at 16:21, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>
> 1) whether to combine read/write into one annotation : +1 from me, *so
> long as* neither is required. And as we discussed, ideally the column
> name would be optional too for single-column values.
I've made the change. We are left with the naming challenge. I'll change and push
the new name tomorrow so there is still some time for flips.
I've settled for @ColumnTransformer for a couple of reasons:
- there is transformation to and from the column
- there are similarities with the ResultTransformer functionally speaking (except
ResultTransformer is read only and at the VM level)
- the Column prefix encompasses both the fact that it's SQL and targetting the
column
- it's just a damn name
Emmanuel