What I mean with this is that the NH team should avoid to publish packages where the main matter is: "This is my taste about how work with NH". As example try to write a post about: How implement session-per-request in ASP.NET MVC3.(note: I didn't say how manage NH session in general).
Or even a more simple post as: The best way to configure session-factory with NH3 On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys. > NuGet is free. > You can create your : > FullAspNetMvc3WithRazorAnd_StructureMap_BaseEntity_QueriableRepo_NH3_NHV_NHSP_NHE.nuspec > in your local machine or in "your own space"in NuGet-gallery > as: > JhonWhite.FullAspNetMvc3WithRazorAnd_StructureMap_BaseEntity_QueriableRepo_NH3LinFu_NHV_NHSR_NHSP_NHE.nuspec > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, it shows that you're continually thinking :) >> >> Here's my comments (more or less in order of your ideas)... >> >> - re: including (consistent) categories (ByteCode, Database, etc.) in >> the package names: good idea, I like it and it makes a lot of sense to me >> - re: changing config files in addition to just adding assemblies, I >> fear that this is anything but straightforward given the many, many ways >> one >> can now configure NH (app.config/web.config, hibernate.cfg.xml, Loquacious >> code-config, etc.); I'd hate to have a package manager register the >> ProxyFactoryFactory in hibernate.cfg.xml when the whole rest of my config >> was in my web.config or in code -- it would be the *last* place I'd look >> to >> see WTF was going on with my app when all hell breaks loose after I add >> the >> package <g>; this probably needs so serious consideration re: how it would >> ever work; not dismissing it, just suggesting its a non-trivial problem to >> solve >> - re: a dummy package that just contains a 'getting started.txt' file, >> to me this seems mostly contrary to the concept of NuGet as >> add-assemblies-to-my-project, but I don't dismiss it out of hand entirely; >> what do others think about this strategy--? >> - re: 'starter packages' like Nhibernate.Example.AspNet, I like this >> idea (a LOT) but I'm not certain how simple it is to actually deliver what >> amounts to an entire new project infrastructure via NuGet; some >> experimenting with this seems to be warranted to better understand the >> limitations of this kind of unintended use of NuGet >> >> >> Steve Bohlen >> [email protected] >> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Okay, my brain won't shut up. >>> >>> I had the thought that packages like NHibernate.Example.AspNet or >>> NHibernate.Full.AspNet could be offered. These combined packages >>> could have all appropriate dependencies to get up and running in a >>> particular scenario. The fact of the matter is that the NHibernate >>> world is so flexible and wide-reaching, that it's hard to pre-decide >>> on an exact set of packages the user might need. I would think it >>> would be more clear in the end to have simple packages and then >>> combine them either through "example" packages or documentation. >>> >>> Patrick Earl >>> >> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > > -- Fabio Maulo
