> 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.
Why is something that's better for me NOT better for everyone else?
Any NH user, simply adds features at the framework level, without having to
spend hours finding 'a' solution 'somewhere'.
> 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.
I run around in O/R mapper land for a long time now. There were
years when O/R mapper developers in .NET land got together and had long
talks about software architecture, what could be needed etc. One thing we
agreed on a long time ago was entity services were necessary to make using
an o/r mapper really worthwhile. Persistence is just about pushing objects
back/forth to the db, NH already solved that problem years ago. It's the
added value of these services which makes a framework usable.
As your focus seems to be on persisting the domain, I truly hope for
all developers who write software on top of NH that NH's focus will move
beyond solely persisting 'the domain', if it only for example was because MS
isn't sitting on its hands with EF...
FB
--
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.
