Why you are thinking that NH is not already a professional toolkit ? Do you really think that 100000 downsloads of NH2.1.2 binaries are because a lot of students likes NH for their school tasks ?
-- Fabio Maulo El 14/10/2010, a las 11:12, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> escribió: > Excellent point. > > Just my 2 cents (also from the outside! ;)): if you don't start seeing NH as > a professional system which cares about users and strives for being seen and > act as a professional toolkit (that's not equal to being a 'mature' > library), decline in usage numbers will, over time, be the end result, > simply because alternatives become more mature and the gap between NH and > alternatives will become smaller if not non-existent. > > I.o.w.: you shouldn't hide behind the 'but it's OSS so we can't get to the > level of professionalism commercial / MS can deliver' anymore. > > again, just my 2cts, do with it what you want. > > FB > >> 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 >>>>> . >
