Open wrap

Skip to first unread message

Adam Dymitruk

Sep 25, 2010, 4:59:10 PM9/25/10
Pardon my ignorance,

What's the deal with splitting the effort across so many projects.
First it was horn... what's the deal?


Will Green

Sep 25, 2010, 8:42:44 PM9/25/10
to nu-net
Differences of opinion about how things should work.

Horn pulled directly from source, and thus became a hassle to remain

Nu leverages an existing system, Ruby Gems.

OpenWrap, as I understand it (which is to say that I don't really)
seeks a native .NET solution, from scratch.

To me, this question, is about akin to asking if NHibernate, SubSonic,
and EF are the same thing. They accomplish the same basic goals, but
they choose to go about it in different ways. Who is to say which team
is duplicating effort?

Attempting to be the one true anything is, IMO, a pipe dream. People
have different ways of going about things, and they will use or
contribute to the ways that work for them. Putting down one or the
other is wasted effort, and certainly will not convince someone who is
perfectly happy using the other solution to adopt yours.

Will Green

Rob Reynolds

Sep 25, 2010, 8:56:15 PM9/25/10


Sep 29, 2010, 9:07:31 PM9/29/10
to nu-net
Not exactly what happened. I've been hammering for a .net solution so
that dependency management could integrate with not only build-time
problems but also runtime and general dependency management solutions.

Nu people said it was not needed because gems was already there, and
that was fair enough.

Is it still the case? Is the Nu leadership still thinking that
the .net platform i proposed so many months ago and they refused to
work on is still "not needed"? I'll leave a couple of weeks, everybody
will know the answer to that one fairly quickly, and any question of
judging the integrity of those "leaders" should become fairly obvious.

In the meantime, I'll continue building openwrap as a .net dependency
delivery platform. If you want more than just assembly resolutions,
then that's what i've been building. I don't fear Ruby, and it is not
why openwrap is not based on it.

Unlike the current Nu, based on Ruby, or the future of the Nu name and
tooling, OpenWrap was announced in public, designed in public, built
in public, accepts patches, is truly opensource, and I've never
deviated from my judgement on the solution that was needed.

So whenever anyone feel the winds changing, and it seems there's a lot
of that going around at the moment, I accept pull requests.

And for whoever will be left behind with the existing nuproj code and
architecture, good luck to you, I still think it was the right choice
at the time that you made, shame not everybody would stick by their
decisions when given the shaft by the big boys...

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages