I'm biased, but I'd favor extensibility. One - if not the - key factor for Windsor success is its extensibility. I'd like to see MonoRail as a minimal core with strong extension points. An user can "put together" a flavor of MR that meet his needs. Extensions work side-by-side. I'd love to prototype something along these lines if the idea resonates with the rest of you.
And yes, I agree with Henry. It should be compatible with MVC - which is not difficult. 2010/7/16 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>: > I totally agree that we should have very clearly and well defined mission > and must be focused on it. And that we should not play catch with Ms. > > I think that productivity is still valid, but the magnitude have changed. In > the past was a webforms x mvc comparison, but today we have many tools that > are good as monorail is. > > Another great change imo, is that today we have an ecosystem towards mvc on > the .Net land. We can reuse existing view engines, routing engines, binders, > etc if we want to. > > On Jul 15, 2010 9:50 PM, "hammett" <[email protected]> wrote: > Exactly. > > So going back to the original theme. I'd invite you to step back and > see the whole picture. I see asp.net mvc as a quite successful > *blessed* solution from MS. I also see Fubu MVC and possible others > offering different perspectives on this space. > > I dont do web development anymore - unfortunately - but I dont think I > would be totally happy with MS' offering or MonoRail. > > asp.net MVC: > - has a great end-to-end experience (Fx + VS Integration + templates) > - Framework is quite minimal, which is a good thing > - Not very extensible IMO > > MonoRail > - Very extensible > - Has everything + the kitchen sink (bad) > - Bad end-to-end experience > > Instead of trying to play the catch up game I'd go for a totally > different route. > First. define the mission and vision. Since the beginning MonoRail was > about productivity. Does this still make sense? What has change in > this space? Are projects simpler or more complex? What about the > cloud? > Second, features should make sense for the vision, and this should be > your bar. Simply dont invest time/energy in whatever deviates from the > mission. > Third, end to end: what makes the tool successful is not only the Fx, > but samples, templates and VS integration. I have quite some > experience with VS, and could certainly help here. > > > Thoughts? > > > 2010/7/14 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>: > >> You're right about both affirmations. Imho, on the next version, the >> core should contain only th... > > hammett > http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Developmen... > > -- > 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. > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- 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.
