Login

Username

Password





Register   Reset password

Cuyahoga news

Cuyahoga development will move to .NET 2.0

After weighing all pro's and cons, we think it's time to move development to .NET 2.0 framework. The driving forces behind this move are:

  • (obvious) A more powerful development environment
  • The web application project model is released
  • Standards compliance. In .NET 1.1 it's nearly impossible to build valid XHTML sites and with 2.0, this is much easier
  • Innovation. One of the benefits of working on an OS project is the learning experience. Staying on .NET 1.1 makes the project a lot less interesting for many people in this area.
Against a whole lot of pro's there is one very big con: Mono support. The .NET 1.1 support is pretty complete in Mono, but the 2.0 support is not. This means that it might be possible that the next generation of Cuyahoga (2.0) will not work on Mono when it's released. We'll keep a separate branch of the 1.x version that will continue to work on Mono, but all new development will be in the 2.0 version.
It was a very hard decision to make. Mono support is one of the key features of Cuyahoga (in fact, it was the main reason why Cuyahoga was started) and we still like to keep supporting Mono, but at this moment, we want to move forward.

5/25/2006 6:40:00 AM Published by Martijn Boland Category Cuyahoga Comments 7

Comments

  • i think that the support in mono is very important. please don't leave the support

    by Ivan Mendoza - 5/25/2006 3:41:57 PM

  • Such a hard call isn't it. My company develops a web delivered application for small businesses and as its developed in .NET 2.0 it doesn't run completely under Mono.

    We have spent hundreds of hours tweaking the code to try and get it to work properly under Mono, but it just never gets there.

    Unfortunately it's a catch 22 I think - Mono needs developers and applications like yours and mine to ensure .Net 2.0 under Mono is supported, but with business critical cases like mine and innovation cases like yours, it's a hard argument for us to persist.

    I hope that as Cuyahoga is an open source application that Mono can leverage it for testing. It would be fantastic to have full .NET 2.0 support for Mono.

    I think you've selected the right path for Cuyahoga - I just hope Mono can follow your work and fill in the missing pieces so we can all benefit from an open source .NET platform.

    B.

    by Brendan - 5/25/2006 4:26:15 PM

  • I'm glad to ear that your moving thoward 2.0, I just recently started playing with Cuyahoga in order to qualify it for our projects and it being in 1.1 was quite a negative point. All my projects are now in 2.0 and feel the better for it.

    I've been waiting for a project like Cuyahoga for quite a while and quite impressed with what I have seen so far.

    Congrats!

    by mathieu - 5/25/2006 7:51:57 PM

  • Sorry, I was forced to jump ship and rewrite all my modules to work under the MojoPortal system. Cuyahoga was a great system for our company's needs and I don't regret ever using it to run 5 different portals, but unfortunately our entire wan network architecture is linux based and Mono compatibility was the main reason I used Cuyahoga in the first place. (With my current servers uptimes measured in years I REALLY don't want a Windows server just to run .net 2.0 with uptimes measures in weeks if you know what I mean)

    by Richard Bourque - 5/29/2006 9:34:26 AM

  • please tell us when will be the .Net 2.0 release

    by Mohamed - 6/10/2006 7:44:47 AM

  • I really hope you'll keep working on the mono branch to and hopefully merge them together when mono is ready.
    I see cuyahoga as the best mono-cms system out there right now, but if you want to be a competitor on the ms.net open source market there is still a long way to go.

    best regards
    Troels Richter

    feel free to write me if there is something I can help with to keep the monobranch alive.

    by Troels Richter - 8/12/2006 6:11:15 PM

  • What is happening with this project? It's look promising, but I am hesitant on using it because of the lack of progress.

    by Ron - 9/30/2006 1:30:17 AM

Back