Subject: Understand Your Policy

From: Low-Cost Auto Insurance Program <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:59:44 -0700

Greetings Atompub-archive

We are pleased to inform you that an updated Auto Policy Rate is available for you.

============================================================
View New Rate Here: http://www.likecavity.com/vespucci/rived/pirouette.do

Ref Id [103-8566]
Rate Expiring Soon
============================================================

It's based on current market conditions like local coverage availability and local demand. 

You will also be able to Browse Different Coverage Providers Here >> http://www.likecavity.com/vespucci/rived/pirouette.do

We hope that you found this policy update useful.
To stop further updates write - Current Update Alerts 1 6 4 4_Doral Dr_Brookings, SD 57006
or visit http://www.likecavity.com/tokens/examinations/insolvency/rottenness/tanglers/whooplas.cfm

You're right. NH is just mature. EF will catch up by the end of the year. Version 4.0 has already made a dramatic entrance. Give it some time and it'll be bullet-proof by mid 2011.   Sergey Jan 18 '10 at 7:57 
15	  	
-1 For "EF4 has an out-the-box answer with regard to n-tier development, in "self-tracking entities". Nobody has released comparable code for NHib." There is ISession.Merge in NHibernate which is a lot better then Self-Tracking entities for N-Tier developement for many reasons.   Alex Burtsev Jan 18 '11 at 5:10
12	  	
@Alex - In what way is NHibernate an "out of the box" solution? Just to clarify; "Out of the box" means that it works with a vanilla install of Visual Studio. That's an unjustified -1 right there.   Doctor Jones Feb 22 '11 at 12:17
8	  	
@DoctaJonez - The way I read it, Alex was contesting the idea that NH has nothing comparable to self-tracking entities, not the part about it being "out of the box".   Jerph Mar 30 '11 at 5:41
2	  	
Actually, I have discovered that EF4 has more flexible inheritance mapping. For instance, you can use 2 tables (TPT) as base class + level 1 class and add discriminator to level 1 table, allowing spliting to level 2 classes. In NH, discriminator can only be defined on base class.   Danny Varod May 18 '11 at 18:25
  	  	
@Danny - in NH you don't define a discriminator property on a class, it's only required in the mapping.   Phill Dec 18 '11 at 7:04As I said, I did not bring up that argument. :) Of course, the real SQL exception should be somewhere down the stack trace. As you might have read from my question, I kind of agree with your answer, but I will wait with accepting it. Maybe someone else comes up with really good reasons against ORM.   hangy Oct 11 '08 at 15:10
  	  	
How about if your database structure is very different from your business objects. Wouldn't it turn it all into an overhead? programming the mappings with xml, instead of just providing the necessay functions on the db side with SP's...?   Uri Abramson Feb 17 at 9:48
oo bad that's not really accurate. It's quite possible for a database to contain tables or columns that are inaccessible to the web server. Stored procedures and views expose the subset that is necessary for access, and restrict access to the rest of the DB (unless you're using a toy DB in the first place). They also make it much easier to add auditing to the easy-to-hack account without forcing triggers onto the underlying database tables themselves (making back-end procedures much more costly or annoying).   Tom May 20 '09 at 3:40
1	  	
Well, in Sql Server 2005 can't you just designate a schema in a database just for the ORM layer? Or is that not enough? If the applications are web apps, then one thing is connecting to a db. Security then left to the application layer.   Min May 29 '09 at 15:48
1	  	
Of course you can restrict what the user can do with an ORM. You just set the user security settings in SQL and give them priviliges to insert/update/delete what you want them to. It would be the same as setting security privelages for stored procedures   	  	
One more thing.. when you use transactions in code, they take a bit more time. This means that you are more bound to deal with database syncronization issues so if you have a very high concurrency system, at least some of your logic will HAVE to go in SP's.   Uri Abramson Feb 17 at 9:49 
  	  	
@uri True; I'm certainly not against stored procedures in areas where they make sense; usually where high performance is required or specialized db functionality is useful and not exposed via the ORM.   Giovanni Galbo Feb 17 at 17:50