FluentNHibernate mapping syntax help needed - nhibernate

Question

I'm having some trouble figuring out the appropriate FluentNHibernate mapping syntax for the following data model and domain objects. Here's the data model I'm working against:
And I'm trying to map the following domain objects to that model:
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public abstract class EntityBase
{
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Attribute : EntityBase
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Label { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual int SortOrder { get; set; }
public virtual Group Group { get; set; }
public virtual Editor Editor { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Group : EntityBase
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Label { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual int SortOrder { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Attribute> Attributes { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Editor : EntityBase
{
public virtual string ViewName { get; set; }
public virtual string WorkerClassName { get; set; }
}
}
In general, what I ultimately want doesn't seem like it should be all that hard to do, but I after having tried just about every combination of mappings I can think of, I still can't seem to get it right. I just need my Attribute to have a reference to the Group that it belongs to and a reference to the Editor assigned to it, and each Group should have a collection of the Attributes that are part of it. The couple of many-to-many join tables are what seem to be giving me fits. Particularly the APPLICATION_ATTRIBUTE table. Ultimately I only want the Attributes that my application is concerned with, in this case, those with an APPLICATION_ID of 4.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Answer 1

Really kinda surprised nobody responded to this at all, but anyway. The answer/solution for this mapping situation that we came up with, which I was trying to avoid to start with, but turned out to really be the best way to go, was to create some custom views in the database that joined together all of the application-specific data I needed, and then just mapped my application's domain objects to those views. This worked at least partially because the information I needed from these tables is going to be read-only for this application, but even if I needed to write to the tables, I'm pretty sure (though haven't verified as I didn't really have need in this case) that I could have setup my views to be writeable and that would've worked too.
Hat tip to #robconery.