On Javascript frameworks, my vote would be for JQuery, because of momentum, support from Microsoft and integration with Visual Studio, and just because it's a really good framework. Trying to support too many could be asking for trouble, although having simple helpers to use references from Google's copies of the libraries or the like would be a little nicety that wouldn't take much or create much clutter. For me, coming from working with MSMVC and now looking at MR, the reason why it's interesting is the integration with Windsor and ActiveRecord, so to me separating them out risks making Castle less appealing in compared to, say, just popping ActiveRecord into MSMVC. One area where MSMVC sometimes still falls down with people getting started is in getting a site up onto hosting... they've now got the Web Platform installer, but that's not bullet-proof, and doesn't much help for getting something running on cheap-ish hosting. Castle's licencing and ability to run on both older versions of .NET and Mono is an advantage here. You're never going to get Microsoft particularly promoting how to run MSMVC on a Linux-based stack, but it's nice flexibility to have for if a client has particular OS requirements. Alternatively, a VM that offers a standard stack, version control and continous integration could be interesting, too, if you can check out a template project, modify it, check it in and have the changes immediately verified and deployed within the VM, then that could provide a development process that's neater and more powerful than the standard MSMVC one. I'd agree with the 'opinionated' approach - MSMVC doesn't fully adopt the style promoted by the likes of Rails, and leaves you to make your own choice as to database mapping framework and various other aspects. You then end up with a bit of the separation of presentation and logic, but with more of the configuration and decision-making still needing to be done. You're probably better off looking at other major frameworks like Rails to see what they do well that MSMVC doesn't handle as neatly. The one that stands out most is probably generators to quickly generate skeleton parts of the code. The other concern that prompted me to look at Castle MonoRail rather than sticking with MSMVC is the Microsoft tendency to not really fix things properly and then just move onto something else. The original ASP.NET improved over ASP, but didn't do AJAX properly. Their first effort at AJAX was genuinely horrible. They've sort of got the right idea now with MSMVC, but it doesn't play so well with IIS 6.5, rather pushes LINQ and LINQ to SQL (still largely ignoring other databases), and who knows how quickly attention will fall away as it moves on to its next preferred model. A mature, stable framework that's that's an open source alternative is definitely a good thing.
Anyway, hopefully I'll have a chance to contribute more (perhaps starting by looking at documentation), but please do keep up with the roadmap and development, because it's good to see it not being just Microsoft MVC all the way. David On Jan 18, 12:05 pm, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that Monorail v2 is out, is time to start thinking about what is > next from Monorail v3. > > I've already created a uservoice for Monorail > v3:http://castle.uservoice.com/forums/38553-monorail-v3 > > But there is a list that I've started working on (this list is still > growing and there will be more added), most of these are just by going > through the source code of Monorail: > > - Need to break the coupling that Monorail currently has on other > libs, at the moment Monorail is dependant on nearly all other Castle > projects. I think to do this we need to enforce the same mechanism > that Windsor uses by the use of facilities to extend the container. > > - MonoRail routing, well this is a grey area that currently is not > totally complete, my view on this is lets just use the > System.Web.Routing > > - javascript support, I think we are supporting too many different > frameworks in this area, we are trying to maintain prototype, > jquery,delicious,... > > - Scaffolding, why is this tight to ActiveRecord? > > - How do we stay in business now with other offers like ASP.Net MVC, > FubuMVC,... ? > > - The whole code base needs a clean-up, remove obsolete code, ... > > The list is not finished, it is a work in progress. > > Cheers > John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
