Ya, I think you're right that as a core development project, we don't
really need to publish packages that are based on preference of
operating mode. I do however think that we need to provide packages
that actually save time and help the user, rather than just making
them do all the hard work themselves. The spirit of this is embodied
in the NuGet example video for Elmah. You install the package and it
configures your application immediately for use. I would be rather
disappointed if there was no help in this area and the nuget packages
only served as a fancy zip file with dlls.
Patrick Earl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
>
