The project wizard as it is only makes sense with more release discipline than a open source community driven project can reasonably offer. After all, I imagine very few MRers say with the dlls they initiated their projects with.
Things got worse with the dependency mix up the separation of the castle project has brought us (together with some good things). Personally I think that some horn-get triggering command in the solutions dependencies folder should be the way to go. Routing really is a pain point. Whenever something changes there, it means lot of work for me, because to get my routing work the way I imagine them, I need to make use of the more reclusive parts of that API. From what I can see MVC has a simpler approach for that and arguments not to take that one would have to be very convincing... But still, the best of MR in my point of view is that it has a way of convincing its users to go an architecturally sane way. It is much more difficult to do something wrong, than to do something right - and I think this is where the actual value lies. The concepts are simple and clean and easy to understand (in most parts), the gritty parts are abstracted out of sight. This makes extending the framework fun, understanding it educating and maintaining quite friction free. Now Asp.net MVC is more or less there, too. OpenRasta is conceptually cleaner and simpler, but feature-wise relatively poor in comparison (from what I could see), Fubu, I don't know. But all are going to evolve and I would feel sad if MR would lose its vanguard state. Soon (next release, or the one after that) asp.net mvc will be better than the current mr in almost every aspect and has a huge community behind it. It would not be a good decision to place your bets on a small foss project, if there is another version of the same backed by the biggest player in the marked, community behind it, almost open sourced, extensible, etc... So, I think, if MR does not want to carry the [Obsolete] attribute, it will have to evolve radically. More 2 cents here :) Jan On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:29 AM, bdaniel7 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Pardon the intrusion as I'm not a contributor to the project. > > From the poll (http://twtpoll.com/r/bbsrdu) it seems the NV has many > users, if not the most. > I think the integration of NV with VS 2008/2010 should be improved. > CVSI is doing a good job, however it still has bugs. > The intellisense stops working sometimes and the coloring is > scrambled. > > Another thing which I consider important for making Castle framework > more apealing > is reviving the project wizard, which used to work in RC 3. > > Regards, > Dan > > On Jan 18, 2:05 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. > > -- Jan -- 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.
