I was trying to make this point when I asked, "So who do we want to make happy?"...but perhaps it was too subtle :)
On Oct 14, 10:00 pm, "Wenig, Stefan" <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a little observation from the outside: I think you should really try and > agree whether you, as a team, actually care about NH being a marketable > product, competing with EF and others, and keeping or increasing its number > of users. Because right now, I think that some of you just don't care, or at > least they say so. But this argument is never really settled, you're just > oscillating between discussing what NH needs marketing-wise, and claiming > indifference to attracting users. It's hard to make a plan when you don't > know what the goal is. > > Cheers, > Stefan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Julian Maughan > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:52 PM > > To: nhibernate-development > > Subject: [nhibernate-development] Re: Planning NH next > > > The reality is that if we have two code lines, the NH3.x code will not > > be maintained. > > > ...but the point is that we don't *have* to go to .NET 4. We can stay > > (for now) on .NET 3.5 which, as Stephen points out, actually gives NH > > an advantage over EF4. And we don't have two code lines hurting > > productivity. > > > Replacing the Iesi ISet implementation doesn't seem like a strong > > enough reason to move framework. What are the other benefits of moving > > to .NET 4 now (or soon)? > > > I'm not suggesting we never move to .NET 4; just questioning the > > timing. Plus take a look at the issues Frans raised (at the start of > > this thread). There are actually some very basic things that NH is not > > doing right, before we start move onto 'the next big thing'. For > > NHibernate to be taken seriously it really need to be presented much > > better - like the serious, capable, enterprise-ready product it is, > > rather than a hobby-shop project. > > > On Oct 14, 9:35 pm, Johannes Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Think of it this way: how much support do you believe that MS will > > put into > > > .net 3.5 onwards with regard to new features :-) > > > > I dont see a problem in that NH4.0 would target .net 4 only, at least > > if > > > some level of support for NH3.x is kept. This support could in its > > simplest > > > form be accepting patches and an occasional service pack release or > > > something. > > > > Since the team has small resources I think it is a bit up to the > > community > > > how much NH3.x should be supported. > > > > IMHO, In order to stay competitive, the latest stable .NET version > > should > > > always be used when developing the next version of a framework. If > > > multitargeting is possible with minimal effort(which it never is) > > then by > > > all means, go ahead. If not, then the team should not waste any > > precious > > > time and just stick to the latest version. > > > > Regards, > > > Johannes > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Interesting point...though I wonder (aloud) if surrendering the > > advantage > > > > of "NH can be your fully-featured ORM solution if you're not on > > .NET 4 yet > > > > whereas EF4 requires .NET 4" is the right choice from an adoption > > > > standpoint...? > > > > > Having a hard requirement on .NET 4 is empowering for the project's > > > > (potential) capabilities, but is likely to be limiting in its > > potential > > > > adoption -- at least for a while. > > > > > My own prediction (remains to be seen, of course) is that the > > present (and > > > > immediate future) financial climate in the global economy will make > > the > > > > adoption-curve of .NET 4 a lot flatter than the adoption of .NET 2 > > was > > > > (meaning that taking a hard dependency on .NET 4 is likely to be > > > > adoption-limiting for a longer period of time than it had been for > > just > > > > about any prior .NET upgrade cycle). > > > > > Based on what I'm hearing out there, very few people are looking > > longingly > > > > at .NET 4 and saying "I have to have that in my company > > immediately" and I'm > > > > skeptical that EF4, MVC3, and a few other MS technologies that are > > .NET > > > > 4-only will (quickly) change their minds. > > > > > Though the next obvious question is "how many of these stuck-in- > > the-mud, > > > > trapped-in-the-past enterprises are even candidates for adopting > > something > > > > like NH in the first place?" > > > > > All that said, as a non-commercial software project, adoption is > > merely one > > > > of many metrics NH can chase, so I think a choice either way is > > entirely > > > > defensible. > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > -Steve B. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> > > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:18:36 > > > > To: [email protected]< > > > > [email protected]> > > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Planning NH next > > > > > if you want compare NH with EF, in some way, you need at least EF4 > > > > (running on .net4) > > > > > -- > > > > Fabio Maulo > > > > > El 14/10/2010, a las 01:40, Julian <[email protected]> > > escribió: > > > > > > You've raised a good point. So who do we want to make happy? If > > NH > > > > > doesn't make anybody happy, it will be consigned to obscurity by > > > > > Entity Framework. > > > > > > On Oct 14, 12:33 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> I don't want see a single #ifdef inside NH sources. > > > > >> Here, in Argentina, I know at least a big company where the tech > > > > department > > > > >> have not approved the usage of .NET3.5... well they must be > > happy with > > > > >> NH2.1.2 > > > > >> If the company where you are working can't approve the usage of > > .NET4 > > > > >> well... you must be happy with NH3.0.x or you have to find > > somebody to > > > > >> maintain NH3.0 for you. > > > > > >> Make happy everybody is outside NH scope. > > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Fabio Maulo > > > > > >> El 13/10/2010, a las 18:34, Diego Mijelshon > > <[email protected]> > > > > >> escribió: > > > > > >> I understand the concerns. > > > > >> Still, I'd like to point out a few things that put us in a > > better > > > > position > > > > >> this time: > > > > >> - We can have VS2010 as a requirement for NH_development_, but > > still > > > > >> produce 3.5 assemblies (VS2010 finally has_real_ > > multitargeting). Maybe > > > > we > > > > >> can switch versions with a small script. > > > > >> - The differences between .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0 are limited to a > > couple > > > > >> files that might reference ISet<T> (unless we start messing with > > dynamic > > > > and > > > > >> things like that). > > > > > >> That's for the technical side... > > > > >> Now, if_only_ 50% of the users want to target .NET 4, it means > > the other > > > > >> half are still on 3.5, which means it should still be supported > > (again, > > > > >> maybe NH 4 can change that, but only if NH 3 is supported until > > most > > > > >> developers are using .NET 4) > > > > > >> Diego > > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:52, Fabio Maulo > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> To community. > > > > >>> If there is a lesson learned in the past of NHibernate is that > > we > > > > (team) > > > > >>> can't maintain not only two mayor versions for long time, but > > even we > > > > can't > > > > >>> maintain two set of solutions (VS2008, VS2010 for example). > > > > > >>> Perhaps we can try again but I'm inclined to think that it will > > be not > > > > >>> possible, we have suffered it from VS2003(net1.1) to VS2005 > > (net2.0) > > > > and we > > > > >>> then avoid to suffer the same from VS2005 (net2.0) to VS2008 > > (net3.5), > > > > I'm > > > > >>> inclined to avoid it again. > > > > > >>> This is OSS and who want maintain an old NH version can do it > > without > > > > any > > > > >>> kind of problems at list from our side (team). > > > > > >>> We can't stop the evolution. NET4 is out there since long time > > and in a > > > > >>> poll we saw 50% of users voting to have NH3 pointing .NET4. > > > > >>> We will follow the evolution with courage and without pay a > > high cost > > > > for > > > > >>> back-draw compatibility. > > > > > >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fabio Maulo > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> Hi *team*. > > > > > >>>> You have around 30 days to talk with people to have some ideas > > about > > > > what > > > > >>>> each one is thinking about NH next. > > > > >>>> The main matter is not about improvements, features or issues > > in > > > > general > > > > >>>> but about the "other" big JUMP. > > > > >>>> Perhaps after 3.0.0, this time, we may wait a little bit > > before open > > > > the > > > > >>>> 3.x branch and start developing NH4... > > > > >>>> Perhaps we have to plan only a little minor release after > > 3.0.0GA... > > > > >>>> something like one month or month and half to release 3.0.1 > > with some > > > > bug > > > > >>>> fix. > > > > > >>>> Personally I would release NH4.0.0 very quickly with one mayor > > > > >>>> change: Remove Iesi.Collection (sig) for external usage... > > > > >>>> That mean (phase1): > > > > >>>> 1) a separated ICollectionTypeFactory for back draw > > compatibility and > > > > to > > > > >>>> give the opportunity to convert existing projects > > > > >>>> 2) Adios no strongly typed <set> (no Iesi ? well... only the > > ISet<T> > > > > will > > > > >>>> be supported) > > > > >>>> 3) The <set> will mean .Net4 ISet<T> by default > > > > >>>> 4) No more support for .NET3.5 > > > > > >>>> (phase2) > > > > >>>> After NH4.0.0 we can start the real hard work but it will be > > "only" > > > > >>>> internal... the remotion of the reference to Iesi.Collection > > > > >>>> We may walk some others routes but I prefer a drastic cut > > instead a > > > > long > > > > >>>> torture. > > > > > >>>> During phase2 I would implements some others ideas but that > > will be > > > > matter > > > > >>>> of appropriate discussions. > > > > > >>>> The other possibility is to give support to both (Iesi and > > .Net) > > > > >>>> ISet differentiating it through a specific <type>... in any > > case it > > > > mean: > > > > >>>> bye bye .NET3.5 > > ... > > read more »
