I love NHibernate and I have one suggestion: Why dont use full meaning names for namespace? For example: NHibernate.Configuration instead of NHibernate.Cfg ??

(I know there is a Configuration class, but we can refactor it if we want ;))

What name do you suggest for the Configuration class? If we rename Cfg to Configuration, people will have to write Configuration.Configuration everywhere and it's ugly.

I suggest one solution:

Cfg namespace -> Configuration namespae

Configuration class -> ConfigurationManager class

The Configuration class is not a "manager"; it is some kind of "container"...
So we can go for ConfigurationHolder or ConfigurationContainer.

Bah... you guys want to make breaking changes just for no real reason. I think Cfg is ubiquitious enough to remain as is and the Configuration class is named very well.

I know you weren't asking for votes, but there's mine.

PilotBob

NHibernate is still in beta stage, so we can accept the breaking changes after refactoring.

Actually, I can have a customized version of NHibernate, with my own full meaning namespace names. But I hope NHibernate will be the greatest O/R Mapping framework for .NET. A nice framework is a powerful, an easy to use, but also need to be an easy to understand one.

I agree with PilotBob here and I'm very skeptical about that change. I think Cfg will do no harm, it is an abbreviation, but an immediately obvious one. And adding meaningless suffixes like Manager, Holder, or something, to Configuration class just so that we can spell one namespace in full seems pointless to me, given that you usually write a namespace only once at the top of the file in "using" declaration.

If one of the other developers wants to take the responsibility and make the change, I won't be against it, but I won't do it myself.

Agree :!:

(if someone decide to do it, can he change "hibernate.cfg.xml" to "nhibernate.cfg.xml" and replace extension "hbm.xml" by "nhm.xml" :wink: )