Thanks. 2010/1/19 Steve Strong <[email protected]>
> Quick update on this - I did a commit this morning with the latest re-linq > library, so those unnecessary dependencies have now gone. > > Cheers, > > Steve > > > On 11/01/2010 23:59, Fabio Maulo wrote: > > Don't worry Steve, I don't want to remove re-linq; my preoccupation was > another... now I know that re-linq does not need DP and this fact make me > fell more comfortable about the module, its responsibilities and > its implications. > > 2010/1/11 Steve Strong <[email protected]> > >> Hi All, >> >> I've been travelling most of today, so only just catching up with things. >> Firstly, I agree that the current dependency on Castle etc is a pain, and >> was (in the absence of any re-linq changes) planning on doing some ILMerge >> stuff at some point. However, Fabian's timely update is perfect - I've got >> an upgrade to the latest re-linq code on my todo list (there are a few fixes >> in there as well that I need) so when I get around to that (probably next >> week), we'll be able to loose those other references :) >> >> I'll also re-iterate to the list the value of re-linq - it's a whole bunch >> of code that I've not had to write, and the bulk of what it is doing is >> stuff that I'd have had to have done anyway. Without re-linq, there's no >> doubt that the effort involved in the current provider would have been >> substantially more - being fair, probably not the amount of work that >> re-linq itself has been, but then I wouldn't have been building something >> that was reusable outside of NH, so would have had an easier problem to >> solve. If I were to put a finger in the air, I'd say that removing re-linq >> would add around 2 man-months to the project (which, at my current rate of >> work, would equate to something like 4 elapsed months). >> >> I'll let you know when I've got the upgrade done... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> On 11/01/2010 21:28, Wenig, Stefan wrote: >> >>> Hi Fabio >>> >>> You're welcome! And BTW, while we were chatting here Fabian posted an >>> update on our blog - I didn't know we're already there: >>> http://www.re-motion.org/blogs/team/archive/2010/01/11/74.aspx >>> >>> The bad news is we're still referencing mscorlib, System, System.Core and >>> System.Data ;-) >>> >>> Get the build at >>> http://www.re-motion.org/builds/RemotionRelinq_1.13.41.0.zip >>> >>> (OK, we're not that fast, we always knew we'd eventually have to do >>> that.) >>> >>> Good luck with NH 3.0! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Stefan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fabio Maulo >>>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:33 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Problem with Remotion >>>> >>>> Ok Stefan and thanks for re-linq. >>>> The time constrain does not exists in NH so take it easy. >>>> As you can imagine to have a lot of external dependency is not a good >>>> thing for a low level FX as NH. >>>> NH2.1.0 core was released with two dependency : log4net and Iesi. >>>> As you know Iesi is maintained by ourself so it is something hard to >>>> define it an external dependency but NH's users was asking to remove >>>> not only log4net but even Iesi. >>>> NH2.1.2 core has 3 dependency: Iesi, log4net, Antlr3 >>>> >>>> The actual trunk has : Iesi, log4net, Antlr3, Remotion, >>>> Relinq, Remotion.Interfaces, Castle.Core, Castle.DynamicProxy... >>>> I think we (we= we and you) need to do something, no? >>>> 2010/1/11 Wenig, Stefan<[email protected]> >>>> Hi Fabio >>>> >>>> We're currently working to separate re-linq from the rest of re-motion, >>>> this will also remove the Castle dependencies (they are used for >>>> Mixins, not for LINQ support). >>>> http://www.re-motion.org/blogs/team/archive/2009/11/10/67.aspx >>>> >>>> If you have any specific time constraints for NH3 alpha, let us know, >>>> but we're almost there. In the meantime, you could also make your own >>>> build using ilmerge. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> If Remotion is really needed [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry for the whining, but that sounds a bit as if re-linq were just a >>>> nuisance to NH. >>>> >>>> Here's a bit of history: Following Ayende's request for help with Linq >>>> 2 NH, we started to remove dependencies between re-motion's ORM, called >>>> re-store, and it's LINQ engine, now called re-linq. The major part of >>>> it was taking SQL generation out of it, so HQL or anything else could >>>> be used as a back-end. Up to now, that effort alone was almost 100 days >>>> of coding. re-linq consists of 30K lines of C# code (compared to ~ 300K >>>> for NH). Built on top of re-linq, Linq 2 NH now has 3700 LoC. Without >>>> re-linq, that would probably have taken _much_ more code and time. >>>> >>>> At this point, some acknowledgement from the NH community would really >>>> be nice. By its nature, re-linq is not a project that too many people >>>> would use directly. We're on our way to transform re-linq and the rest >>>> of re-motion into a community project, so we need to get some attention >>>> at least. (That said, there has been no shortage of credits from Steve >>>> himself!) >>>> >>>> Next time you need something, here's our mailing list: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/re-motion-users >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> http://relinq.codeplex.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fabio Maulo >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:50 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [nhibernate-development] Re: Problem with Remotion >>>>> >>>>> The most easy way, for Remotion, is deliver its dll with Castle >>>>> embedded using IL-Merge. >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Steve, we need to talk. >>>>> 2010/1/11 Fabio Maulo<[email protected]> >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand something... >>>>> We have worked to remove the very ugly cross reference between >>>>> NHibernate and Castle. >>>>> >>>>> For example you can use NH2.1 with the new Castle.DynamicProxy2.2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> only >>>> >>>> >>>>> by recompiling its bytecode. >>>>> This feature is even used in Castle where the new coming soon >>>>> ActiveRecord release will be release based on NH2.1 and its own >>>>> Bytecode with the coming soon DP2.2; the same happen in Spring. >>>>> >>>>> What we have thrown out from the door now was reintroduced from the >>>>> window. >>>>> I don't know, and I don't want know, why Remotion is needing >>>>> Castle.DynamicProxy but, IMO, we can't release NH3.0 with this new >>>>> strongly reference to Remotion if it mean strongly reference to >>>>> anything else than .NET and, as very most, log4net (NOTE: we are >>>>> >>>>> >>>> going >>>> >>>> >>>>> to remove even the reference to log4net). >>>>> >>>>> If Remotion is really needed there is no problem but we need to talk >>>>> with them to find a way to remove the dependency to Castle before >>>>> release the first Alpha of NH3.0. >>>>> -- >>>>> Fabio Maulo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Fabio Maulo >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fabio Maulo >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > > -- Fabio Maulo
