The future of Monorail in ms mvc Framework Vortex

Last week, Hamilton informed the Microsoft MVC team of all the complex and inintuitive requirements that the castle team had gained from real-world applications and how to handle these issues. In addition, he also developed some integration cases as a conceptual verification of the scalability and plug-and-play of Ms MVC.

Now I can:

• Create initial support for iparameterbinder
• Create an nvelocity view Factory)
• Supports rest (supports URL semantics and rendering based on the receiving header [accept header)
• Support collaboration with databinder and activerecorddatabinder of Castle

Functions that I want to implement but have not yet implemented:

• Reuse the helpers of monorail: mainly because they are too tightly bound to monorail.
• Create a Brail view Factory: Same reason as above
• Create an attempt factory selector: affects existing testing

Currently, Hamilton is very satisfied with the ms mvc framework, but he suggestsCommunityDo not have too much expectation for the CTP version to be released at the end of the year:

That's because what you will see is a very small framework. There is still much work to be done to really play its role. According to the ms mvc team, this CTP version is mainly used for feedback. However, I believe the next version will be great!

For the future of Castle monorail, Hamilton said they had to wait until the final version and feature set of the ms mvc framework was determined:

I really expect the ms mvc team to try to support everything monorail currently supports, but I'm not sure they're going to do that. The final result of monorail 2.0 depends on the implementation of the ms mvc framework. If the final Ms MVC is great and provides many features, I will consider dropping monorail 2.0. If the final version of Ms MVC is not so perfect and the necessary functions are missing, monorail 2.0 can reuse the basic architecture of Ms MVC to provide some valuable extensions.

Aaron Jenney, Engineering director at eleutian technology, agreed with Hamilton and suggested:

What I want to see is that monorail can become really like rails. I want to see some implementations above Ms MVC, which follow the concept of "Convention is better than configuration"-including generators and more functions. I expect it to go further and become a real C # web platform expected by the. NET community.
However, Aaron, Adam esterline, and others also pointed out that monorail has insufficient support for the routing function:

Routing-In ror and Ms MVC, they regard routing as a first-class citizen. Monorail seems to be an additional object.

Why is routing a top-level class so important?

• Dry (do not repeat yourself) -- closely binding the routing engine and URL generation allows easy and secure reconstruction of URLs;
• Test -- test the route in monorail requires end-to-end testing. If the route is a top-level object, you can perform an isolation test on it.

Hamilton has been paying attention to the problem of routing. He developed a new monorail routing engine and relatedCodeYou can download it from monorail SVN.

Ben scheirman discussed Microsoft and open-source technologies in his blog and concluded that "system. web. MVC won't be able to achieve the number of viewers that monorail can possess, because many enterprise giants are already following Microsoft's path. Whether Microsoft's technology is good or bad, they will do it, in addition, many consulting companies work hard in this field!"

View Original English text:The future of Monorail in the wake of MS MVC