﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Ayende @ Rahien</title><link>http://ayende.com</link><description>Ayende @ Rahien</description><copyright>Copyright (C) Ayende Rahien  2004 - 2021 (c) 2026</copyright><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Jay R. Wren commented on On the CAB: Again</title><description>One thing that hasn't been mentioned about the CAB is that the license agreement may not be good for everyone. It is NOT by any means the MS-PL.
  
  
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480452.aspx
  
  
Specifically I find EntLib and CAB completely unusable do to item number 10.
  
  
"That you may run the Software or modifications only on the Windows platform."
  
  
I like Mono. I like Linux. While I do my development under Windows, I like to think that it COULD be easily moved to run under Mono. EntLib and CAB completely remove this possibility.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment3</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment3</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 16:36:15 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sneal commented on On the CAB: Again</title><description>Bank industry customer?  Now it all makes sense to me as to why the CAB is so bloated.  In my experience banks just love huge monolithic frameworks, which fits in with their "all or nothing" attitude towards software development.  They just love to add in useless features and make their code bend to the will of "the framework".  Since banks are about minimizing risk, I assume this is done out of fear of change (aka writing more code).  Clearly an agile approach would dictate that you only build what you need now, but banks and their waterfall methodology definately fall into monolithic framework category.  Clearly not all banks are created equal, but this has been my experience with them.
  
  
On the lighter side, if you compare the CAB to Weblogic and EJBs (which our a bank favorite) then I guess the CAB looks pretty good!
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment2</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment2</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 15:06:20 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bil Simser commented on On the CAB: Again</title><description>I won't get into the developing in a vacuum part as that is an entire issue unto itself. I will mention that I totally agree that CAB is complex, but complexity comes with the territory. CAB isn't just a WinForm UI thing. As a few of us have said, CAB is a lot of functionality packed into a few assemblies. Dependency Injection, Event Messaging and Routing, MVP, MVC, etc. so yes, its complex because of it's size but it's not complicated. There's just a lot of moving parts. If I sat down and learned the entire StructureMap API, Castle, and a few other things I would probably end up stuffing my brain with just as much knowledge as I have with CAB (probably less).
  
  
PS no bashing or things taken out of context here. I think it's a very lively discussion, with no right or wrong. Just differing views, some overlapping, some not. I personally like it the threads going on as it promotes awareness.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment1</link><guid>http://ayende.com/2435/on-the-cab-again#comment1</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 03:50:03 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>