Don't worry Steve, I don't want to remove re-linq; my preoccupation was another... now I know that re-linq does not need DP and this fact make me fell more comfortable about the module, its responsibilities and its implications.
2010/1/11 Steve Strong <[email protected]> > Hi All, > > I've been travelling most of today, so only just catching up with things. > Firstly, I agree that the current dependency on Castle etc is a pain, and > was (in the absence of any re-linq changes) planning on doing some ILMerge > stuff at some point. However, Fabian's timely update is perfect - I've got > an upgrade to the latest re-linq code on my todo list (there are a few fixes > in there as well that I need) so when I get around to that (probably next > week), we'll be able to loose those other references :) > > I'll also re-iterate to the list the value of re-linq - it's a whole bunch > of code that I've not had to write, and the bulk of what it is doing is > stuff that I'd have had to have done anyway. Without re-linq, there's no > doubt that the effort involved in the current provider would have been > substantially more - being fair, probably not the amount of work that > re-linq itself has been, but then I wouldn't have been building something > that was reusable outside of NH, so would have had an easier problem to > solve. If I were to put a finger in the air, I'd say that removing re-linq > would add around 2 man-months to the project (which, at my current rate of > work, would equate to something like 4 elapsed months). > > I'll let you know when I've got the upgrade done... > > Cheers, > > Steve > > > > On 11/01/2010 21:28, Wenig, Stefan wrote: > >> Hi Fabio >> >> You're welcome! And BTW, while we were chatting here Fabian posted an >> update on our blog - I didn't know we're already there: >> http://www.re-motion.org/blogs/team/archive/2010/01/11/74.aspx >> >> The bad news is we're still referencing mscorlib, System, System.Core and >> System.Data ;-) >> >> Get the build at >> http://www.re-motion.org/builds/RemotionRelinq_1.13.41.0.zip >> >> (OK, we're not that fast, we always knew we'd eventually have to do that.) >> >> Good luck with NH 3.0! >> >> Cheers >> Stefan >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fabio Maulo >>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:33 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Problem with Remotion >>> >>> Ok Stefan and thanks for re-linq. >>> The time constrain does not exists in NH so take it easy. >>> As you can imagine to have a lot of external dependency is not a good >>> thing for a low level FX as NH. >>> NH2.1.0 core was released with two dependency : log4net and Iesi. >>> As you know Iesi is maintained by ourself so it is something hard to >>> define it an external dependency but NH's users was asking to remove >>> not only log4net but even Iesi. >>> NH2.1.2 core has 3 dependency: Iesi, log4net, Antlr3 >>> >>> The actual trunk has : Iesi, log4net, Antlr3, Remotion, >>> Relinq, Remotion.Interfaces, Castle.Core, Castle.DynamicProxy... >>> I think we (we= we and you) need to do something, no? >>> 2010/1/11 Wenig, Stefan<[email protected]> >>> Hi Fabio >>> >>> We're currently working to separate re-linq from the rest of re-motion, >>> this will also remove the Castle dependencies (they are used for >>> Mixins, not for LINQ support). >>> http://www.re-motion.org/blogs/team/archive/2009/11/10/67.aspx >>> >>> If you have any specific time constraints for NH3 alpha, let us know, >>> but we're almost there. In the meantime, you could also make your own >>> build using ilmerge. >>> >>> >>> >>>> If Remotion is really needed [...] >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry for the whining, but that sounds a bit as if re-linq were just a >>> nuisance to NH. >>> >>> Here's a bit of history: Following Ayende's request for help with Linq >>> 2 NH, we started to remove dependencies between re-motion's ORM, called >>> re-store, and it's LINQ engine, now called re-linq. The major part of >>> it was taking SQL generation out of it, so HQL or anything else could >>> be used as a back-end. Up to now, that effort alone was almost 100 days >>> of coding. re-linq consists of 30K lines of C# code (compared to ~ 300K >>> for NH). Built on top of re-linq, Linq 2 NH now has 3700 LoC. Without >>> re-linq, that would probably have taken _much_ more code and time. >>> >>> At this point, some acknowledgement from the NH community would really >>> be nice. By its nature, re-linq is not a project that too many people >>> would use directly. We're on our way to transform re-linq and the rest >>> of re-motion into a community project, so we need to get some attention >>> at least. (That said, there has been no shortage of credits from Steve >>> himself!) >>> >>> Next time you need something, here's our mailing list: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/re-motion-users >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Stefan >>> >>> http://relinq.codeplex.com >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fabio Maulo >>>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:50 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [nhibernate-development] Re: Problem with Remotion >>>> >>>> The most easy way, for Remotion, is deliver its dll with Castle >>>> embedded using IL-Merge. >>>> >>>> P.S. Steve, we need to talk. >>>> 2010/1/11 Fabio Maulo<[email protected]> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> I don't understand something... >>>> We have worked to remove the very ugly cross reference between >>>> NHibernate and Castle. >>>> >>>> For example you can use NH2.1 with the new Castle.DynamicProxy2.2 >>>> >>>> >>> only >>> >>> >>>> by recompiling its bytecode. >>>> This feature is even used in Castle where the new coming soon >>>> ActiveRecord release will be release based on NH2.1 and its own >>>> Bytecode with the coming soon DP2.2; the same happen in Spring. >>>> >>>> What we have thrown out from the door now was reintroduced from the >>>> window. >>>> I don't know, and I don't want know, why Remotion is needing >>>> Castle.DynamicProxy but, IMO, we can't release NH3.0 with this new >>>> strongly reference to Remotion if it mean strongly reference to >>>> anything else than .NET and, as very most, log4net (NOTE: we are >>>> >>>> >>> going >>> >>> >>>> to remove even the reference to log4net). >>>> >>>> If Remotion is really needed there is no problem but we need to talk >>>> with them to find a way to remove the dependency to Castle before >>>> release the first Alpha of NH3.0. >>>> -- >>>> Fabio Maulo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fabio Maulo >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fabio Maulo >>> >>> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
