Mathieu Fenniak

@consigliory The release with that bugfix is now cut, version 0.12.1.0.

Hey @cecilphillip; while this obviously isn't documented, the code that creates the IConnectionFactory object is located here (https://github.com/mfenniak/rethinkdb-net/blob/master/rethinkdb-net/Configuration/ConfigurationAssembler.cs). It is relatively straight-forward -- a DefaultConnectionFactory is created and passed a...

Hi Massimiliano. I'm sorry to say that it is not possible to use an already serialized document. rethinkdb-net needs to follow the RethinkDB network protocol. They have adapted the protocol...

The DatumConverter for Dictionary objects is located here: https://github.com/mfenniak/rethinkdb-net/blob/4cae29bf6eedbb5099954acab7cd2eeb5bda44e3/rethinkdb-net/DatumConverters/NamedValueDictionaryDatumConverterFactory.cs.cs (It's called a NamedValueDictionary... because it only supports Dictionary objects where the keys are strings, just like a JSON object, but...

> Again, finding my way through the code is a bit hard, but... would it be possible to write those two classes (the factory and the converter) outside the driver,...

Hey @smurfpandey. Thanks for the bug report; neither of the object serializers in rethinkdb-net currently support using `dynamic` properties or fields. But, our recently added support for key-value dictionaries might...

Hrm, there are limitations on the capabilities of `dynamic` with expression trees that seem like they would prevent rethinkdb-net from using them in any serious way. Nothing with a `dynamic`...

Hey Tom. I'm so sorry that I didn't reply to this issue a couple of months earlier; it flew by my inbox without me noticing until today. The error that...

Hi @caxelrud. We have an example in the repo of using a changefeed monitoring thread here: https://github.com/mfenniak/rethinkdb-net/blob/master/Examples/RethinkDb.Examples.ConsoleApp/Program.cs. This is the only documentation / example I have handy; it'd be pretty...

Hm... I'm not 100% sure how this query actually runs. It would appear to me that, for every row in 'TableA', it's going to perform a separate query in 'TableB'....