On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason I asked is because for me to provide a > solid layer on top of NH for what my work does is difficult besides the > persistence part: all other stuff is scattered around in a dozen projects > with various quality, docs, etc. while all of it is in fact only usable > with > NH, so IMHO it's better for users of NH if the 'package' NH simply brings > everything you need to the table: persistence _and_ entity services. >
As you said, it is better for you. One of the reasons of the NHibernate success is exactly due to the fact that it has a clear responsibility: persist your domain. That is all. > IMHO a more efficient way of getting things done, also with OSS. > Then, you may open your commercial project and manage it with your HO. > On the contrary, I don't see how asking about why NH isn't going > into a more defined direction on my own forums is getting the answers I'm > looking for. > The direction, at least for the NH's team, is clear... then somebody has some difficult to accept it and don't want understand it insisting for a different direction. > > But again, if asking these kind of questions is reason to bash me or > my post or whatever, wtf is wrong then as I don't get it. > Thanks. -- Fabio Wind Maulo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
