On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM, pvginkel <[email protected]> wrote: > My 'vote' is for option 1. Reworking Iesi would likely result in a library > that has very little classes left, especially when everything that > NHibernate doesn't use is removed. To keep this library as a requirement > would, I think, not justify the added dependency.
Iesi still has a reason to exists next to NHibernate. Just having a dependancy to just a few classes does not make it an unwanted dependancy IMHO. > I have two alternatives to the approach described in option 1. Firstly, it > is possible to keep the Iesi namespace, but put the classes in the > NHibernate assembly. Kind of hybrid approach. Second, instead of putting > it in the NHibernate namespace, it is also possible to put it in a > global::System.Collections.Generic namespace in the NHibernate assembly. > This would also ease migration when Microsoft decided to implement the > OrderedSet class in a later release. > Re-using the .net framework namespace is bad practice. Using that namespace to justify the usage because it would make a future migratiton 'more easy' is not really an issue. We cannot predict the future so predicting interface, property and class names is just impossible. -- Ramon
