Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace AutoMapper with Mapperly #1206

Open
neva1842 opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Replace AutoMapper with Mapperly #1206

neva1842 opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@neva1842
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
This feature request is not related to a problem. It is an exploratory idea to consider replacing AutoMapper with Mapperly.

Describe the solution you'd like
I propose considering the replacement of Automapper with Mapperly in Jason Taylor's CleanArchitecture template. According to the benchmarks provided in this GitHub repository, Mapperly demonstrates superior performance compared to Automapper. This enhancement can potentially lead to performance gains in our applications. Moreover, Mapperly supports IQueryable projections, which aligns well with our existing use cases.

@m2017atTR
Copy link

Hi neva1842,

Automapper have support about projection .Project() ...
https://ojdevelops.com/2015/09/using-automapper-in-entity-framework.html

@fizmhd
Copy link

fizmhd commented Sep 23, 2024

Hi,
We have used Mapperly in our project and it was not a good choice.
Its a good library, when the mapping is direct, and simple mappings.

But when your property names are different, then you need to mention it by attributes.
It grows longer, when you have many properties.

When it comes to mapping Child classes, it becomes harder.

So we had to move away from Mapperly, and use simple mapping classes.

Sharing, my feedback on library, I am not against it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants