Freigeben über

What do you want to see in EntLib vNext?

  • Artikel

Grigori has finally broken the silence on the patterns & practices team's plans for Enterprise Library with this short post on the Codeplex community:

Yes, we are planning a release of EntLib for VS2008, consisting of fixes and minor improvements. No new application blocks though. So it will be more like 3.5 not 4.
Suggestions are still accepted (contact me directly or post your wishlist here).
We are also planning on releasing updated Hands On Labs with guidance on VAB and PIAB.

I encourage everyone with an interest in the future evolution of Enterprise Library to take up Grigori's invitation and post your wishlist on the forum. I'll be doing so myself - but I thought it would be interesting to see what everyone else comes up with before I declare my hand!

Comments

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    It seems that the Enterprise Library is alive ( and Tom Hollander is taking care of that - What do you

  • Anonymous
    October 14, 2007
    Entlib is great One thing i really wish for is a better logging application block Bad things about the current one..

  • slow when logging a lot
  • no rolling-log-files

  • Anonymous
    October 14, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 15, 2007
    Fix this bug: http://www.codeplex.com/entlib/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=11319 Exception handling with logging doesn't work properly.

  • Anonymous
    October 16, 2007
    Business logging. Guidance and infrastructure for producing and publishing business logs (customer created, order submited, etc.) totally nothing to do with application logging (exceptions, etc.).

  • Anonymous
    October 16, 2007
    A better inversion of control container.  Check out Windsor or Spring.NET Support for the upcoming MS MVC. Better tools for the Repository factory for creating data access for domain driven designs.  Including support for relationships. Lastly, installations that work.  I've tried the data access guidance package and it doesn't install.

  • Anonymous
    October 16, 2007
    You know I'm going to bring this up Tom.  We're using Caching, Logging, and soon Exception Handling.  P&P offers us a lot of 'value add' stuff to the core .NET library and we don't need to train our developers on it (very much). We GAC'd our version.  It's an enterprise library, and thus we USE it as an enterprise library, so why would we have it in private assemblies? Disk space is cheap.  None of the assemblies in EL are that big that they consume a lot of memory...especially on a server with 8 processors and several gig of RAM. So what am I getting at?  PLEASE, PLEASE, un-abstract EL out of so many assemblies!  I'd love to see 1 for each functional area, 1 for each functional area designer, 1 for common, unit tests of coarse keep the 1:1 ratio with the project it's testing. My point is that it took a long time to go through an sign each of those assemblies (there's so many!) and add the PartiallyTrustCaller attribute and remove the InternalVisible to attribute to all the assembly files.  (We knew the consequences of doing that). We don't modify what's in EL.  Why?  Well we don't have the staff to document, support, etc. any modifications, and there's no point in it.  If it didn't meet our needs we simply wouldn't be using it.  But the vanilla does so we leave it as is and all of our staff except for select individual who have the authority and responsibility and know how to work with the downloaded code from P&P track it. We also created an MSI that allow us to install the signed assemblies into the GAC.  We include a switch in the MSI for developer or server...server just gets the assemblies put in the GAC.  Developers gets the assemblies in the GAC plus an install folder which we then map the registry to for Visual Studio so that when we add references, they show up under the .NET tab. This has made our config management extremely simple.  It's part of our GHOST image and everyone has it by default and everyone knows it's on the servers.  In my home office I have something similar, but I just make my references not shared forcing a copy from my install folder into the bin folder.  This is for the work I do on the side on shared hosts. Decreasing the number of assemblies, would make it a lot easier make a new MSI for the next version.  If P&P would make a MSI that would be helpful too.  Not an MSI for the typical P&P developer, but an MSI that network OPS can install on servers, or install on the 'Morts' machines...the ones who don't need to see the source code, who don't need the sln/csproj files, the ones whom it's dangerous to give them anything that simply isn't 'add this reference, use the assembly'.  We purposefully hide the source code, key, and other goodies that come with the download from P&P.  EL in the wrong hands is quite dangerous...I can tell you some war stories. Anyway, I've rambled on entirely too long and I know I've beat my point to death; but somethings to think about. As far as new blocks?  Well I want to explore more of the current blocks first.  It's hard to keep up.

  • Anonymous
    October 17, 2007
    I suppose it's out of the question that you could finally support the Oracle ODP.NET providers in DAAB?

  • Anonymous
    October 18, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 19, 2007
    For me is the most importent thing that you provide the Oracle-Driver for Oracle-Databases (ODP.Net) in the DAAB! Ralf

  • Anonymous
    October 23, 2007
    Guidance to extend the DAAB. Which methods we need to redefine? Which classes?

  • Anonymous
    November 19, 2007
    just wanted to know how to use validation application block when my validators are in an external file other than .config files or when it is simply in a database.

  • Anonymous
    November 20, 2007
    However, the rule are stored under the app.config what can i do If I want to store in DB which allows my applicaiton admin.can i have a clear explanation because i am very new to programming.

  • Anonymous
    November 21, 2007
    an Oracle ODP.NET provider would be good but how about a DB2 provider?  we haven't seen an EntLib DB2 provider since 1.x.  Thanks for the good work.

  • Anonymous
    November 24, 2007
    When will be the next EntLib release?

  • Anonymous
    November 24, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 28, 2007
    This isn't technical per se, and I'm posting it here because I'm boycotting sites that require yet another registration process for posting (I actually really miss Passport), but I would really like to see version information contained in the online documentation, much like how .Net's class docs will say "This feature was introducted in version X". When there are as many versions of this thing floating around as there are, it'd be nice to - when referencing a different version - to know at which point in the lifecycle EntLib and my app got out of sync so I can grab a specific version (latest does not always mean greatest, so it's important to me to be able to grab a specific build)