Mailing-List: contact user-cs-help@ibatis.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user-cs@ibatis.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Reply-To: <jtaylor@escoinst.com>
From: "Jason Taylor" <jtaylor@escoinst.com>
To: <user-cs@ibatis.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Error configuring DAO. Cause: Ambiguous match found.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:01:05 -0500
Organization: The ESCO Institute
Message-ID: <002201c626a9$73a92030$0202fea9@prescott>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <16f722280601311127h36c59d0bs374d28d659dad19@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Index: AcYmnDCsZaRdgovdQQWxn7fHS64S5wADDrOw


The plot has taken a sudden turn. 

It seems to depend on which version of NUnit I'm using as to whether or not
the test will fail:

Compiled in VS2005, tested using NUnit for .NET 2.0 = fail
Compiled in VS2003, tested using NUnit for .NET 2.0 = fail
Compiled in VS2003, tested using NUnit for .NET 1.1 = success !

The constant seems to be NUnit for .NET 2.0.

Has anyone else encountered trouble with NUnit for .NET 2.0?

Thanks,

Jason


-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Humphries [mailto:chad.humphries@gmail.com] 
Sent: January 31, 2006 2:27 PM
To: user-cs@ibatis.apache.org; jtaylor@escoinst.com
Subject: Re: Error configuring DAO. Cause: Ambiguous match found.

Jason,

I've been using iBatis in .NET 2.0 (the 1.x build) with no issues so
far.  If you are able to replicate the issue on a smaller scale (test
project, test case) please post it to the list, I would love to look
at it and see if I can replicate it.

-Chad

On 1/31/06, Jason Taylor <jtaylor@escoinst.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have solved my problem regarding the ambiguous match issue; in short I
was
> using VS 2005 instead of VS 2003.
>
> When I recreated my project in VS 2003 everything worked fine.
>
> I imagine this has been asked before, but what, if any, support for the
.NET
> Framework 2.0 is planned?
>
> Any insight on the particulars of this 'ambiguous match' issue would be
> welcome as well.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Jason
>
>
>