[Mono-devel-list] Re: [Mono-list] Surveys: Mono 1.0 and Mono
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:05:41 -0700
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 08:58, A Rafael D Teixeira wrote:
> >From: Bob Smith <email@example.com>
> Just correcting a misconception...
I didn't misconceive, but others might, so...
> >Why a monolithic release?
> Yes, we can partition, but see...
> >1. The core stuff. The JIT, meta data libs, and class libraries.
> >This is really the heart of mono and will be needed for everything else.
> Fine, but is a huge core, you'ĺl see below...
Thats fine. I can live with that. :)
> >2. ASP.NET (Web stuff)
> >Not necessary for non web builders. What percentage of machines have
> >apache on them? I don't think Microsoft is going to go after mono over
> >asp, but if they do, it would be good for them to target the asp stuff
> >directly rather then all of mono.
> ASP.NET can, AND ALREADY IS, kind of separate (xsp and mod_mono, are=20
> separate packages.
> But we have to consider that not only Web Pages are dealt by it, but also=
> Web Services.
I'm sorry if I offended. I know that its already seperate. What I was
responding to was Miguel's suggestion of having one big 1.0 release. My
suggestion was a few smaller 1.0 releases.
(Btw, what web service stuff can you do thats not part of ASP.NET and
doesn't require a webserver?)
> >3. GTK# (Gui stuff)
> >Why install GTK# on your web server? I know my web servers don't have X
> >on them, so I'd rather not download it on that system.
> Yes, it is already a separate install. But Mono, needs first to be adopte=
> by developers, that will develop applications based on it, that then will=
> deployed, so Mono 1.0 have to have all tools and toolkits needed for the=20
> huge mass of developers out there...
Yes, but I still don't see why you couldn't say, release mono core 1.0
because its ready, and release GTK# a month later when it stabilizes.
(I'm not implying that GTK# is more or less ready then mono core, just
an example). What I'm trying to say I guess is that some parts might be
ready before other parts.
> >4. mcs, mbas, monodis, ilasm, etc (Development stuff)
> >These tools are only useful to developers. Most users wont ever need
> >them, so why have them install them?
> That is the cited misconception...
> ASP.NET compiles pages on the fly, so it needs mcs, mbas, and any other=20
> supported compiler, to be installed.
> Some language runtimes also need ilasm, because only it gives access to t=
> whole IL codes.
> Also any application can do as ASP.NET and invoke those tools at anytime,=
> because they are wrapped in the core libraries.
I understand this too. I didn't say that some of these packages couldn't
depend on each other. What my suggestion is, is that some platforms
don't need all of the tools, so make it easy not to install them, and at
the same time, we might be able to release some of the packages before
others. For example, I'm sure MCS is getting close to stable and that
ASP.NET, being much newer, is not quite as close. By having a separate
ASP.NET release, we can release MCS sooner and release ASP.NET a little
I'd rather have the stable parts of mono asap and wait for the less
stable parts rather then have to wait for everything to stabilize.=20
> So 1 and 4, always go hand-and-hand. So only 2 and 3 can (and are) packag=
> separately, but as I said to get applications that need mono as a runtime=
> developers have to have lots of things readily available, so again Mono 1=
> probably needs lots of tools and additional class libraries...
> Best regards,
> Rafael Teixeira
> Brazilian Polymath
> Mono Hacker since 16 Jul 2001
> English Blog: http://monoblog.blogspot.com/
> Brazilian Portuguese Blog: http://monoblog.weblogger.terra.com.br/
> High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local=
> service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
Bob Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----