Good point.
Everyone has different goals with NHibernate, ranging from scratching own
product/intellectual itches, to selling related tools and books, to compete
with Microsoft, to anything else or a combination of all the others.
The truth is, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's desires at the same
time. But any compromises made should consider the needs of the broad
community if we want to keep NH alive:
- NHibernate won't maintain itself without the committers. We overburden
them, we lose them.
- NHibernate won't go far without contributors. We reject the contributions,
we lose them.
- NHibernate won't be useful without the users. We don't support their needs
(like compatibility), we lose them.
- NHibernate won't be valuable without its ecosystem (products, people
answering questions, etc). We don't listen to them, we lose them.
I'll stop before this becomes entirely rethorical and philosophical. But you
get the point.
Diego
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:00, 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
> > >
> > > > >>>> Please try to avoid a quick answer and take your time to
> > "digest" the
> > > > >>>> matter.
> > >
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> Fabio Maulo
> > >
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Fabio Maulo
> > > > .
>
