Michael, Concentrating on Castle, are you saying that it is the job of the developer or user to build the stack. Cheers
Paul Cowan Cutting-Edge Solutions (Scotland) http://thesoftwaresimpleton.blogspot.com/ On 4 March 2010 15:35, Michael Maddox <[email protected]> wrote: > inline > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Paul Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the reply Michael, I (obviously) think this is a conversation > > worth having. > > But surely you are not saying that in order to use a stack with many > castle > > parts, I need to, and I quote: > > > > "create a fork of each project (from a tag, release, > > branch, trunk, wherever), and integrate them so they all work > > together" > > > I don't use the entire Castle stack, so I don't know the answer to > that question. > > That's what I would likely do if it didn't just work out of the box > and HornGet also couldn't get me there. > > > > I know how to do this and have but I do not want to. It is also > intensified > > by all the other OSS projects that use castle like nhibernate, rhino and > the > > rest. Must I retrieve the source of these projects and then use PSake or > > whatever else is du jour in order to rebuild my stack? > > > It seems to me that getting things to compile together is much less of > a burden than getting things to test successfully together. Sure, the > compile issues are annoying, but I'd personally rather deal with them > at compile time than run time. If anything, I want the compiler to > tell me about all possible problems that come from integrating two > components, but that's just not going to happen, ever. > > > > Surely we can do better than that? Other platforms do. > > > > Ruby is better because the RubyGems package manager takes care of the > > installation of reusable libraries called gems. It is a joy to work > with. > > It is easier in Ruby because they are working with code files and not > > binary files but it is truly amazing and shows how poor horn is in > > comparison. > > > Let's say .NET was as "capable" as Ruby. What is then left to do? > You still need to test whatever dependency code was downloaded, likely > with significantly less compiler help than you get in .NET. For me, > that would result in writing quite a few new integration tests. > > Personally, I would prefer to manage my dependencies very explicitly. > Automatic downloading of dependencies sounds cool, but I won't > necessarily agree that it's "better". > > I would assume Ruby has some way to manage versions, incompatibility > between versions, and compatibility between different versions of > dependencies? If so, HornGet can probably take on some of that > burden. If not, Ruby's solution sounds like a partial solution to me > that would fall down eventually in reality (it could be argued that a > partial solution is better than no solution). > > > > If nobody else sees this as a problem and just an occasional challenge > then > > I will be quiet. > > > I think the complaint is valid. Personally, I just don't have the > same view on a solution. I probably need to explore what Ruby is > doing more to understand why their approach seems so compelling to so > many people. To me, Ruby's solution seems to not reflect the reality > of how dependencies work. > > > > At the moment I have a stack that if anything uses too much OSS. I am > > paralysed in my upgrade path. > > > > Surely that last statement is an oxymoron? > > > I don't think this problem is specific in any way to OSS. If > anything, OSS makes it simpler because you can fork and fix. Imagine > you had a commercial application with dependencies on a dozen > different third party commercial components that had interdependencies > among themselves. I wouldn't want to touch that project with a ten > foot pole. > > > If you take less dependencies on third party components, the downside > is that you have a less feature rich application. You may have to > reinvent the wheel a few times to avoid taking on a dependency. I > think those kind of choices need to be made on a case by case basis, > but I think long and hard about each and every dependency that I add > to a project. > > > -Michael Maddox > http://www.capprime.com/software_development_weblog/ > > -- > 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]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- 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.
