El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Hi guys, I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our own project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. Any objections?
No objections from me but I was wondering if you / someone can provide a list of what would be new as the last time I looked at the NHibernate trunk has been some time now.
From: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com [mailto:castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ayende Rahien Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:20 PM To: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Any objections to moving to NHibernate Trunk?
Hi guys, I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our own project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. Any objections?
My first thought was "Sure, why would we do it any other way" --- Then I realized that NHibernate isn't hosted here. Switching to the NHibernate trunk would be tying the functioning of our code to something outside our control. That's probably not a good idea. (but then, I don't use NHibernate so factor that into the value to offer my opinion)
On Nov 12, 2007 5:19 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Hi guys, > I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our > own project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). > I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. > Any objections?
> No objections from me but I was wondering if you / someone can provide a > list of what would be new as the last time I looked at the NHibernate trunk > has been some time now.
> From: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com > [mailto:castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ayende Rahien > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:20 PM > To: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com > Subject: Any objections to moving to NHibernate Trunk?
> Hi guys, > I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our own > project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). > I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. > Any objections?
> What do you think about this ? I wanna hear comments.
> On Nov 12, 8:50 pm, "Shawn Carr" <shawn.m.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No objections from me but I was wondering if you / someone can provide a > > list of what would be new as the last time I looked at the NHibernate trunk > > has been some time now.
> > From: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ayende Rahien > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:20 PM > > To: castle-project-devel@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Any objections to moving to NHibernate Trunk?
> > Hi guys, > > I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our own > > project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). > > I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. > > Any objections?
DetachedQuery it's at *uNHAddIns.dll* ActiveRecord enhanced classes are at *uNhAddIns.ActiveRecord.dll*, (which depend of uNHAddIns.dll).
Possibilities:
Option 1) Bring these dll as external lib at Castle, and make it part of it. Option 2) Bring only uNHAddIns.dll, the which have the implementation of DetachedQuery and copy only the method into the respectives classes of the core of ActiveRecord (at ActiveRecord.dll). And now the dll ActiveRecord will depend of uNHAddIns.dll.
What do you have in mind ?
Best regards.
On Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM, Hamilton Verissimo <hamm...@castlestronghold.com> wrote:
> DetachedQuery it's at *uNHAddIns.dll* > ActiveRecord enhanced classes are at *uNhAddIns.ActiveRecord.dll*, (which > depend of uNHAddIns.dll).
> Possibilities:
> Option 1) Bring these dll as external lib at Castle, and make it part of > it. > Option 2) Bring only uNHAddIns.dll, the which have the implementation of > DetachedQuery and copy only the method into the respectives classes of the > core of ActiveRecord (at ActiveRecord.dll). And now the dll ActiveRecord > will depend of uNHAddIns.dll.
> What do you have in mind ?
> Best regards.
> On Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM, Hamilton Verissimo <hamm...@castlestronghold.com> > wrote:
> > Cool, what about a patch? :-)
> > On 11/12/07, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> wrote:
> we use NH trunk with Castle. > the process is: > Get NH trunk, build it and put in Castle's Lib. > Build Castle - all tests are green.
> moving to NH2 does not break any test - so I say +1 for trunking NH
> On Nov 13, 2007 6:59 AM, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> > wrote: > > A patch could be great ! But...
> > DetachedQuery it's at uNHAddIns.dll > > ActiveRecord enhanced classes are at uNhAddIns.ActiveRecord.dll, (which > depend of uNHAddIns.dll).
> > Possibilities:
> > Option 1) Bring these dll as external lib at Castle, and make it part of > it. > > Option 2) Bring only uNHAddIns.dll, the which have the implementation of > DetachedQuery and copy only the method into the respectives classes of the > core of ActiveRecord (at ActiveRecord.dll). And now the dll ActiveRecord > will depend of uNHAddIns.dll.
> > What do you have in mind ?
> > Best regards.
> > On Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM, Hamilton Verissimo < > hamm...@castlestronghold.com> wrote:
> > > Cool, what about a patch? :-)
> > > On 11/12/07, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 8:22 AM, Ken Egozi <egoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > does uNHAddins depends on NH2?
> > we use NH trunk with Castle. > > the process is: > > Get NH trunk, build it and put in Castle's Lib. > > Build Castle - all tests are green.
> > moving to NH2 does not break any test - so I say +1 for trunking NH
> > On Nov 13, 2007 6:59 AM, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> > > wrote: > > > A patch could be great ! But...
> > > DetachedQuery it's at uNHAddIns.dll > > > ActiveRecord enhanced classes are at uNhAddIns.ActiveRecord.dll, (which > > depend of uNHAddIns.dll).
> > > Possibilities:
> > > Option 1) Bring these dll as external lib at Castle, and make it part of > > it. > > > Option 2) Bring only uNHAddIns.dll, the which have the implementation of > > DetachedQuery and copy only the method into the respectives classes of the > > core of ActiveRecord (at ActiveRecord.dll). And now the dll ActiveRecord > > will depend of uNHAddIns.dll.
> > > What do you have in mind ?
> > > Best regards.
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM, Hamilton Verissimo < > > hamm...@castlestronghold.com> wrote:
> > > > Cool, what about a patch? :-)
> > > > On 11/12/07, Dario Quintana <conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> wrote:
Ayende, I guess that means that you now think it's fairly stable. I am then fine with it.
However, I have one question to all: Can Castle's release schedule be aligned to NH2 release schedule? Since NH is the most important single dependency of Castle, we need an GA release of it for finishing 1.0. It also means that future releases must either built against NH trunk, or branched with NH release versions.
I propose to switch to NH trunk now and freeze/change to NH2 GA, as soon as it is available.
-Markus
On 11/12/07, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Hi guys, > I am going over the new stuff in NHibernate, and we have today moved our own project to the trunk (were using an older version of the trunk). > I believe it to be stable enough to move Castle trunk to it. > Any objections?
