I'm wondering if there's any relatively easy way to extend NHibernate to support F#'s discriminated union. Not just a single IUserType or ICompositeUserType, but something generic that I can re-use regardless of the actual contents of the DU.
For example, suppose I have a property called RequestInfo, which is a union defined as:
type RequestInfo =
| Id of int
| Name of string
This compiles into an abstract RequestInfo class, with concrete subclasses Id and Name. I can get all this info out just fine with F# reflection. In this case, I could store it in the database with "RequestInfo_Tag", "RequestInfo_Id", "RequestInfo_Name".
As I'm a NHibernate newbie, what kind of problems am I going to run into trying to follow this approach? Are more complex cases going to be impossible to deal with? For example, what about nested discriminated unions? Is there a way I can "hand off" the reading of the rest of the union to another ICompositeUserType?
More importantly, will this mess up my querying capabilities? Meaning, will I have to know the actual column names in the DB; I won't be able to do Criteria.Eq(SomeDiscUnion) and have it all sorted out?
I'm not looking for a complete "provide code" answer, just some general advice if this is even worth going after (and some pointers on how), or if I should just rethink my model.
Thanks!
P.S. Not to be rude, but if your answer consists of "use C#", it's not very helpful.
I've not been brave enough to try using NHibernate with F#'s type system, but it might help to look from the perspective of what's actually generated by the F# compiler.
If you look at your Discriminated Union in reflector, there are actually three classes generated (and more if you count the private debug proxies).
public abstract class RequestInfo : IStructuralEquatable, IComparable, IStructuralComparable
The first class, RequestInfo, is abstract, and is actually implemented by the other types in the union.
// Nested Types
[Serializable, DebuggerTypeProxy(typeof(Program.RequestInfo._Id#DebugTypeProxy)), DebuggerDisplay("{__DebugDisplay()}")]
public class _Id : Program.RequestInfo
{
// Fields
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never), CompilerGenerated, DebuggerNonUserCode]
public readonly int id1;
// Methods
[CompilerGenerated, DebuggerNonUserCode]
public _Id(int id1);
}
[Serializable, DebuggerTypeProxy(typeof(Program.RequestInfo._Name#DebugTypeProxy)), DebuggerDisplay("{__DebugDisplay()}")]
public class _Name : Program.RequestInfo
{
// Fields
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never), CompilerGenerated, DebuggerNonUserCode]
public readonly string name1;
// Methods
[CompilerGenerated, DebuggerNonUserCode]
public _Name(string name1);
}
so when you do:
let r=Id(5)
let s=Name("bob")
r and s are instances of _Id and _Name, respectively.
So the answer to your question is likely the answer to one of the following questions:
How do I map to an abstract class in nhibernate?
How can I make NHibernate use a factory method?
How can I create map Nhibernate to immutable objects?
How do I do implement a custom type in NHibernate (presumably with IUserType).
Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough to give you a coherent answer to any of those, but I'm sure someone else here has done at least one of these three solutions.
I'd like to think that you can use the same methods used for Inheritance Strategies, using, for example, a discriminator column, but I'm afraid the lack of a default constructor makes this problematic. So I'm inclined to think that using a custom type is the solution.
After some fiddling, here's a (possibly buggy and or broken) custom user type:
type RequestInfo =
| Id of int
| Name of string
type RequestInfoUserType() as self =
interface IUserType with
member x.IsMutable = false
member x.ReturnedType = typeof<RequestInfo>
member x.SqlTypes = [| NHibernate.SqlTypes.SqlType(Data.DbType.String); NHibernate.SqlTypes.SqlType(Data.DbType.Int32); NHibernate.SqlTypes.SqlType(Data.DbType.String) |]
member x.DeepCopy(obj) = obj //Immutable objects shouldn't need a deep copy
member x.Replace(original,target,owner) = target // this might be ok
member x.Assemble(cached, owner) = (x :> IUserType).DeepCopy(cached)
member x.Disassemble(value) = (x :> IUserType).DeepCopy(value)
member x.NullSafeGet(rs, names, owner)=
// we'll use a column as a type discriminator, and assume the first mapped column is an int, and the second is a string.
let t,id,name = rs.GetString(0),rs.GetInt32(1),rs.GetString(2)
match t with
| "I" -> Id(id) :> System.Object
| "N" -> Name(name) :> System.Object
| _ -> null
member x.NullSafeSet(cmd, value, index)=
match value with
| :? RequestInfo ->
let record = value :?> RequestInfo
match record with
| Id(i) ->
cmd.Parameters.Item(0) <- "I"
cmd.Parameters.Item(1) <- i
| Name(n) ->
cmd.Parameters.Item(0) <- "N"
cmd.Parameters.Item(2) <- n
| _ -> raise (new ArgumentException("Unexpected type"))
member x.GetHashCode(obj) = obj.GetHashCode()
member x.Equals(a,b) =
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(a,b)) then
true
else
if (a=null && b=null) then
false
else
a.Equals(b)
end
This code could surely be made more generic, and should probably not be in your actual domain layer, but I thought it would be useful to take a stab at a F# implementation of IUserType.
Your mapping file would then do something like:
<property name="IdOrName" type="MyNamespace.RequestInfoUserType, MyAssembly" >
<column name="Type"/>
<column name="Id"/>
<column name="Name"/>
</property>
You probably can get away without a column for "Type" with a slight tweak to the custom UserType code.
I don't know how these custom user types work with queries/ICriteria, as I haven't really worked with custom user types much before.
Related
I'm using kotlin sealed class. And I need to retrieve specific subclass. My sealed class:
sealed class Course(
val type: Type
) {
data class ProgrammingCourse(val name: String, val detail: String) : Course(Type.PROGRAMMING)
object LanguageCourse: Course(Type.LANGUAGE)
.....
}
For example I have function which can return Course:
fun getCourse(): Course {
if(...)
return Course.ProgrammingCourse("test", "test")
else
return Course.LanguageCourse
}
In addition, I have a method that can only work with a specific subclass of the Course class. Fox example:
fun workWithCourse(course: Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
// here some logic
}
And now I'm trying to get the course using the method getCourse(), and then pass it to the method workWithCourse()
fun main() {
val course = getCourse()
workWithCourse(course)
}
Error:
Type mismatch.
Required:
Course.ProgrammingCourse
Found:
Course
But I know the course type - Type, parameter that each course has. Can I, knowing this Type, cast the course (which I retrieve from getCourse() method) to a specific subclass ? Is there such a way ?
Please help me
P.S.
I don't need type checks like:
if(course is Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
workWithCourse(course)
}
I need the subclass to be automatically inferred by the Type parameter, if possible.
P.S.2
The need for such a solution is that I have a class that takes a Course, it doesn't know anything about a particular course, at the same time the class takes the Type that I want to use for identification. This class also receives an interface (by DI) for working with courses, a specific implementation of the interface is provided by the dagger(multibinding) by key, where I have the Type as the key. In the same way I want to pass by the same parameter Type specific subclass of my Course to my interface which working with specific courses.
No, there is no way for automatic inference to the best of my knowledge.
You returned a Course, and that's what you have. Being sealed here does not matter at all. Generally what you do here is use the when expression if you want to statically do different things depending on the type, but if it's just one type (ProgrammingCourse) that can be passed to workWithCourse, then an if is probably right, with dispatch using as.
That said, this looks like counter-productive design. If you can only work with one course, why do they even share a top level interface? The way the code is written implies working is a function that can take any course, or should be a method member. Anything else is very confusing. Perhaps workWithCourse should take a Course and use the when expression to dispatch it appropriately?
In kotlin you can specify the class explicitly with as.
val course = getCourse()
if (type == Type.PROGRAMMING) {
workWithCourse(course as Course.ProgrammingCourse)
}
*thanks Joffrey for his comment
What you seem to be asking for is a compile-time guarantee for something that will only be known at runtime. You didn't share the condition used in getCourse(), but in general it could return both types.
Therefore, you need to decide what will happen in both cases - that's not something the compiler can decide for you via any "inference".
If you want the program to throw an exception when getCourse() returns something else than a Course.ProgrammingCourse, you can cast the returned value using as:
val course = getCourse() as Course.ProgrammingCourse
workWithCourse(course)
If you don't want to crash, but you only want to call workWithCourse in some cases, then you need an if or when statement to express that choice. For instance, to call it only when the value is of type Course.ProgrammingCourse, then you would write the code you already know:
if (course is Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
workWithCourse(course)
}
Or with a when statement:
val course = getCourse()
when (course) {
is Course.ProgrammingCourse -> workWithCourse(course)
is Course.LanguageCourse -> TODO("do something with the other value")
}
The when is better IMO because it forces you (or other devs in the team) to take a look at this when whenever you (or they) add a new subclass of the sealed class. It's easy to forget with an if.
You can also decide to not test the actual type, and focus on the type property like in #grigory-panov's answer, but that is brittle because it relies on an implicit relationship between the type property and the actual type of the value:
val course = getCourse()
if (type == Type.PROGRAMMING) {
workWithCourse(course as Course.ProgrammingCourse)
}
The main point of using sealed classes is so you can use their actual type instead of a manually managed type property + casts. So I'd say use only is X and don't set a type property at all. Using a sealed class allows Kotlin to type-check a bunch of things, it's more powerful than using such a property.
I used to think of a Record as a container for (immutable) data, until I came across some enlightening reading.
Given that functions can be seen as values in F#, record fields can hold function values as well. This offers possibilities for state encapsulation.
module RecordFun =
type CounterRecord = {GetState : unit -> int ; Increment : unit -> unit}
// Constructor
let makeRecord() =
let count = ref 0
{GetState = (fun () -> !count) ; Increment = (fun () -> incr count)}
module ClassFun =
// Equivalent
type CounterClass() =
let count = ref 0
member x.GetState() = !count
member x.Increment() = incr count
usage
counter.GetState()
counter.Increment()
counter.GetState()
It seems that, apart from inheritance, there’s not much you can do with a Class, that you couldn’t do with a Record and a helper function. Which plays better with functional concepts, such as pattern matching, type inference, higher order functions, generic equality...
Analyzing further, the Record could be seen as an interface implemented by the makeRecord() constructor. Applying (sort of) separation of concerns, where the logic in the makeRecord function can be changed without risk of breaking the contract, i.e. record fields.
This separation becomes apparent when replacing the makeRecord function with a module that matches the type’s name (ref Christmas Tree Record).
module RecordFun =
type CounterRecord = {GetState : unit -> int ; Increment : unit -> unit}
// Module showing allowed operations
[<CompilationRepresentation(CompilationRepresentationFlags.ModuleSuffix)>]
module CounterRecord =
let private count = ref 0
let create () =
{GetState = (fun () -> !count) ; Increment = (fun () -> incr count)}
Q’s: Should records be looked upon as simple containers for data or does state encapsulation make sense? Where should we draw the line, when should we use a Class instead of a Record?
Note the model from the linked post is pure, whereas the code above is not.
I do not think there is a single universal answer to this question. It is certainly true that records and classes overlap in some of their potential uses and you can choose either of them.
The one difference that is worth keeping in mind is that the compiler automatically generates structural equality and structural comparison for records, which is something you do not get for free for classes. This is why records are an obvious choice for "data types".
The rules that I tend to follow when choosing between records & classes are:
Use records for data types (to get structural equality for free)
Use classes when I want to provide C#-friendly or .NET-style public API (e.g. with optional parameters). You can do this with records too, but I find classes more straightforward
Use records for types used locally - I think you often end up using records directly (e.g. creating them) and so adding/removing fields is more work. This is not a problem for records that are used within just a single file.
Use records if I need to create clones using the { ... with ... } syntax. This is particularly nice if you are writing some recursive processing and need to keep state.
I don't think everyone would agree with this and it is not covering all choices - but generally speaking, using records for data and local types and classes for the rest seems like a reasonable method for choosing between the two.
If you want to achieve data hiding in a record, I feel there are better ways of going about it, like abstract data type "pattern".
Take a look at this:
type CounterRecord =
private {
mutable count : int
}
member this.Count = this.count
member this.Increment() = this.count <- this.count + 1
static member Make() = { count = 0 }
The record constructor is private, so the only way of constructing an instance is through the static Make member,
count field is mutable - not something to be proud about, but I'd say fair game for your counter example. Also it's not accessible from outside the module where it's defined due to private modifier. To access it from outside, you have the read-only Count property.
Like in your example, there's an Increment function on the record that mutates the internal state.
Unlike your example, you can compare CounterRecord instances using auto-generated structural comparisons - as Tomas mentioned, the selling point of records.
As for records-as-interfaces, you might see that sometimes in the field, though I think it's more of a JavaScript/Haskell idiom. Unlike those languages, F# has the interface system of .NET, made even stronger when coupled with object expressions. I feel there's not much reason to repurpose records for that.
So, I created a DataContext (Linq-Sql) in VS from an existing database. It has a table called Users, thus I have a User object. In particular, I want to focus on the UserID and Username properties.
Now, I have an interface:
interface IUser
{
int Id { get; }
string Username { get; }
}
I want to create a partial User class and implement IUser. The reason for this is so that I can treat any User as an IUser in many places and not be concerned about the precise User class:
public partial class User : IUser
{
public int Id
{
get { return UserID; }
}
}
I don't implement the Username get property because I know that the entity object already implements it.
When I have a query like dc.Users.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Id == 5); I know that it's an error because it'll translate that call to an SQL statement and it's going to try to find the Id column, which doesn't exist - UserID exists. So I understand this mapping issue.
When I query dc.Users.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Username == "admin"), it also throws an error, BUT Username IS indeed an existing column in the database, so my impression is that no custom/additional mapping needs to take place. What am I missing?
Can someone point me to a good source on how to combat Linq vs. partial classes implement a custom interface?
Update Question:
Before I try it, does anyone know if "rigging" the datacontext.designer.cs file with our custom interfaces (to implement to the classes themselves instead of in a separate partial class file) will work? Is there a consequence of doing this?
I've come across this before using Generics and LINQ, and the way I solved it was to change p.Id == 5 to p.Id.Equals(5) and LINQ was able to map the query.
In regards to rigging autogenerated code, I have done this in my projects, the only annoyance is having to type all the interfaces again if you regenerate your DBML file. I looked in to dynamically adding interfaces to classes and found this SO post, but I haven't tried it out yet:
What is the nicest way to dynamically implement an interface in C#?
Either way, re-typing is a much better trade off for us right now as we've been able to remove a lot of duplication in our implementation code with this method.
Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough with LINQ or .NET to explain why Equals() works when == does not :)
I had a discussion at work regarding "Inheritance in domain model is complicating developers life". I'm an OO programmer so I started to look for arguments that having inheritance in domain model will ease the developer life actually instead of having switches all over the place.
What I would like to see is this :
class Animal {
}
class Cat : Animal {
}
class Dog : Animal {
}
What the other colleague is saying is :
public enum AnimalType {
Unknown,
Cat,
Dog
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
How do I convince him (links are WELCOME ) that a class hierarchy would be better than having a enum property for this kind of situations?
Thanks!
Here is how I reason about it:
Only use inheritance if the role/type will never change.
e.g.
using inheritance for things like:
Fireman <- Employee <- Person is wrong.
as soon as Freddy the fireman changes job or becomes unemployed, you have to kill him and recreate a new object of the new type with all of the old relations attached to it.
So the naive solution to the above problem would be to give a JobTitle enum property to the person class.
This can be enough in some scenarios, e.g. if you don't need very complex behaviors associated with the role/type.
The more correct way would be to give the person class a list of roles.
Each role represents e.g an employment with a time span.
e.g.
freddy.Roles.Add(new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle ));
or if that is overkill:
freddy.CurrentEmployment = new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle );
This way , Freddy can become a developer w/o we having to kill him first.
However, all my ramblings still haven't answered if you should use an enum or type hierarchy for the jobtitle.
In pure in mem OO I'd say that it's more correct to use inheritance for the jobtitles here.
But if you are doing O/R mapping you might end up with a bit overcomplex data model behind the scenes if the mapper tries to map each sub type to a new table.
So in such cases, I often go for the enum approach if there is no real/complex behavior associated with the types.
I can live with a "if type == JobTitles.Fireman ..." if the usage is limited and it makes things easer or less complex.
e.g. the Entity Framework 4 designer for .NET can only map each sub type to a new table. and you might get an ugly model or alot of joins when you query your database w/o any real benefit.
However I do use inheritance if the type/role is static.
e.g. for Products.
you might have CD <- Product and Book <- Product.
Inheritance wins here because in this case you most likely have different state associated with the types.
CD might have a number of tracks property while a book might have number of pages property.
So in short, it depends ;-)
Also, at the end of the day you will most likely end up with a lot of switch statements either way.
Let's say you want to edit a "Product" , even if you use inheritance, you will probably have code like this:
if (product is Book)
Response.Redicted("~/EditBook.aspx?id" + product.id);
Because encoding the edit book url in the entity class would be plain ugly since it would force your business entites to know about your site structure etc.
Having an enum is like throwing a party for all those Open/Closed Principle is for suckers people.
It invites you to check if an animal is of a certain type and then apply custom logic for each type. And that can render horrible code, which makes it hard to continue building on your system.
Why?
Doing "if this type, do this, else do that" prevents good code.
Any time you introduce a new type, all those ifs get invalid if the new type is not handled. In larger systems, it's hard to find all those ifs, which will lead to bugs eventually.
A much better approach is to use small, well-defined feature interfaces (Interface segregation principle).
Then you will only have an if but no 'else' since all concretes can implement a specific feature.
Compare
if (animal is ICanFly flyer)
flyer.Sail();
to
// A bird and a fly are fundamentally different implementations
// but both can fly.
if (animal is Bird b)
b.Sail();
else if (animal is Fly f)
b.Sail();
See? the former one needs to be checked once while the latter has to be checked for every animal that can fly.
Enums are good when:
The set of values is fixed and never or very rarely changes.
You want to be able to represent a union of values (i.e. combining flags).
You don't need to attach other state to each value. (Java doesn't have this limitation.)
If you could solve your problem with a number, an enum is likely a good fit and more type safe. If you need any more flexibility than the above, then enums are likely not the right answer. Using polymorphic classes, you can:
Statically ensure that all type-specific behavior is handled. For example, if you need all animals to be able to Bark(), making Animal classes with an abstract Bark() method will let the compiler check for you that each subclass implements it. If you use an enum and a big switch, it won't ensure that you've handled every case.
You can add new cases (types of animals in your example). This can be done across source files, and even across package boundaries. With an enum, once you've declared it, it's frozen. Open-ended extension is one of the primary strengths of OOP.
It's important to note that your colleague's example is not in direct opposition to yours. If he wants an animal's type to be an exposed property (which is useful for some things), you can still do that without using an enum, using the type object pattern:
public abstract class AnimalType {
public static AnimalType Unknown { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Cat { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Dog { get; private set; }
static AnimalType() {
Unknown = new AnimalType("Unknown");
Cat = new AnimalType("Cat");
Dog = new AnimalType("Dog");
}
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
This gives you the convenience of an enum: you can do AnimalType.Cat and you can get the type of an animal. But it also gives you the flexibility of classes: you can add fields to AnimalType to store additional data with each type, add virtual methods, etc. More importantly, you can define new animal types by just creating new instances of AnimalType.
I'd urge you to reconsider: in an anemic domain model (per the comments above), cats don't behave differently than dogs, so there's no polymorphism. An animal's type really is just an attribute. It's hard to see what inheritance buys you there.
Most importantly OOPS means modeling reality. Inheritance gives you the opportunity to say Cat is an animal. Animal should not know if its a cat now shout it and then decide that it is suppose to Meow and not Bark, Encapsulation gets defeated there. Less code as now you do not have to do If else as you said.
Both solutions are right.
You should look which techniques applies better to you problem.
If your program uses few different objects, and doesn't add new classes, its better to stay with enumerations.
But if you program uses a lot of different objects (different classes), and may add new classes, in the future, better try the inheritance way.
I have a following mapping:
<set name="People" lazy="true" table="ProjectPeople">
<key column="ProjectId" />
<composite-element class="PersonRole">
<many-to-one name="Person" column="PersonId" cascade="save-update" not-null="true" />
<many-to-one name="Role" column="RoleId" cascade="save-update" not-null="true" />
</composite-element>
</set>
Now, I do not really want to have a separate class for Role in domain, I need only the Role name. However, in DB Roles should still be normalized to a separate table Role (Id, Name).
How do I map it so that People use following PersonRole class?
public class PersonRole {
public virtual Person Person { get; set; }
public virtual string Role { get; set; }
}
Update: added bounty, seems like a question useful not only to me.
You won't actually get the answer you hope for, simply because it is not possible. (N)Hibernate is an Object-Relational-Mapping framework and support three kinds of mapping strategies:
table per class hierarchy
table per subclass
table per concrete class
It also allows you to deviate from this by using formula or sql-insert etc, but as you've found out, these only cause you more pain in the end, are not encouraged by the Hibernate community and are bad for the maintainability of your code.
Solution?
Actually, it is very simple. You do not want to use a class for Role. I assume you mean that you do not want to expose a class of type Role and that you do not want to have to type prObject.Role.Name all the time. Just prObject.Role, which should return a string. You have several options:
Use an inner class in, say, PersonRole, this class can be internal or private. Add a property Role that sets and updates a member field;
Use an internal class. Add a property Role that sets and updates a member field;
Let's examine option 2:
// mapped to table Role, will not be visible to users of your DAL
// class can't be private, it's on namespace level, it can when it's an inner class
internal class Role
{
// typical mapping, need not be internal/protected when class is internal
// cannot be private, because then virtual is not possible
internal virtual int Id { get; private set; }
internal virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
// the composite element
public class PersonRole
{
// mapped properties public
public virtual Person Person { get; set; }
// mapped properties hidden
internal virtual Role dbRole { get; set; }
// not mapped, but convenience property in your DAL
// for clarity, it is actually better to rename to something like RoleName
public string Role /* need not be virtual, but can be */
{
get
{
return this.dbRole.Name;
}
set
{
this.dbRole.Name = value; /* this works and triggers the cascade */
}
}
}
And the mapping can look as expected. Result: you have not violated the one-table-per-class rule (EDIT: asker says that he explicitly wants to violate that rule, and Hib supports it, which is correct), but you've hidden the objects from modification and access by using typical object oriented techniques. All NH features (cascade etc) still work as expected.
(N)Hibernate is all about this type of decisions: how to make a well thought-through and safe abstraction layer to your database without sacrificing clarity, brevity or maintainability or violating OO or ORM rules.
Update (after q. was closed)
Other excellent approaches I use a lot when dealing with this type of issue are:
Create your mappings normally (i.e., one-class-per-table, I know you don't like it, but it's for the best) and use extension methods:
// trivial general example
public static string GetFullName(this Person p)
{
return String.Format("{0} {1}", p.FirstName, p.LastName);
}
// gettor / settor for role.name
public static string GetRoleName(this PersonRole pr)
{
return pr.Role == null ? "" : pr.Role.Name;
}
public static SetRoleName(this PersonRole pr, string name)
{
pr.Role = (pr.Role ?? new Role());
pr.Role.Name = name;
}
Create your mappings normally but use partial classes, which enable you to "decorate" your class any which way you like. The advantage: if you use generated mapping of your tables, you an regenerate as often as you wish. Of course, the partial classes should go in separate files so considering your wish for diminishing "bloat" this probably isn't a good scenario currently.
public partial class PersonRole
{
public string Role {...}
}
Perhaps simplest: just overload ToString() for Role, which makes it suitable for use in String.Format and friends, but of course doesn't make it assignable. By default, each entity class or POCO should have a ToString() overload anyway.
Though it is possible to do this with NHibernate directly, the q. has been closed before I had time to look at it (no ones fault, I just didn't have the time). I'll update if I find the time to do it through Hibernate HBM mapping, even though I don't agree to the approach. It is not good to wrestle with advanced concepts of Hib when the end result is less clear for other programmers and less clear overall (where did that table go? why isn't there a IDao abstraction for that table? See also NHibernate Best Practices and S#arp). However, the exercise is interesting nevertheless.
Considering the comments on "best practices": in typical situations, it shouldn't be only "one class per table", but also one IDaoXXX, one DaoConcreteXXX and one GetDaoXXX for each table, where you use class/interface hierarchy to differentiate between read-only and read/write tables. That's a minimum of four classes/lines of code per table. This is typically auto-generated but gives a very clear access layer (dao) to your data layer (dal). The data layer is best kept as spartan as possible. Nothing of these "best practices" prevent you using extension methods or partial methods for moving Role.Name into Role.
These are best general practices. It's not always possible or feasible or even necessary in certain special or typical sitations.
Personally I would create a Role class like Yassir
But If you want to use the structure that you have at the moment then create a view that contains the foriegn Key to your Person Table and the Role Description.
Modify the Set mapping table to point at your new view
Then modify your Role mapping so that it is a property instead of the many to one mapping.
However taking this approach I think will mean that you will not be able to update your role as it is reerencing a view.
Edit: To update the role you could add <sql-insert>,<sql-update> and <sql-delete> to your mapping file so that the cascade-all will work
i don't think it is possible to map many-to-one to a primitive type if i were you i would add a Role class to the model
This the biggest turn off of the whole OO purist thing.
Surely the goal is to have a working application. Not somebodies version of a perfect class hierarchy. So what if you have to code "prObject.Role.Name " instead of "prObject.Role". How does this help you make a better more reliable program?
From the application design purist point of view what you want is just plain wrong. A person can have several roles, a role can usually be assigned to several people.
Why go to all this trouble to enforce an unrealistic one role per person class hierachy when the undelaying data model is many roles per person?
If you really do have an "only one role per person" rule then it should be refleced in the underlying data model.