> 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 ?
read my 1st reply in this thread. You asked a question, I gave my
input. You don't have to use it. To rehash:
- proper docs which are up to date
- decent supported codebase, so you aren't left in the code right after
release because a new version is started
- all functionality needed in 1 box, so you can focus on what you're payed
to do.
FB
>
> --
> 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
> >>>>> .
> >
