The deployment model that Microsoft are using for .NET is, in my opinion, outdated and untenable. Each release of the framework is dropped on the world as a monolithic block of CLR, language updates, a new Visual Studio version and a “Base” class library which tries to be all things to all developers. In this post, I would like to call into question the efficacy, if not the sanity, of this approach, particularly regarding the BCL.
The “Base” class library?The first couple of versions of .NET included two UI paradigms within the BCL: ASP.NET and Windows Forms. If you built an ASP.NET application, you still had Windows Forms in the framework; if you built a Windows Forms application, you still had ASP.NET.
With .NET 3.0, Microsoft added WPF into the mix; the full version of that framework now included 3 UI paradigms. It also added WCF and Workflow, and then in the oddly-numbered 3.5 came the born-moribund LINQ-to-SQL ORM. Whether you wanted them or not, you got them all. This made the framework distribution large and unwieldy, and so the Client Profile was conceived, a “lightweight” version of the BCL which excluded all the server-related classes (and quite a few classes which were very useful for client development, such as HttpUtility).
During the lifetime of .NET 3.5, Microsoft discovered the “out-of-band” release model. They created another ORM, Entity Framework, and distributed it out-of-band. Scott Guthrie got bored on a plane and made ASP.NET MVC, and it was distributed out-of-band. The out-of-band model was good, although Microsoft’s apparent desire to create the kind of framework-proliferation that Java suffered from, but comprised entirely of in-house projects, was bizarre and inexplicable.
Then it was time for .NET 4, and into that was rolled Entity Framework 4.0, and ASP.NET MVC 2, an update to WPF, and a new version of Workflow for good measure. Again, there was a Client Profile. (Again, it was missing useful classes.)
Shortly after .NET 4 was released, ASP.NET MVC 3 became the current version. A little while after that, Entity Framework 4.1 appeared, and it appeared in a way that was new (to .NET) and exciting: NuGet.
Package ManagementThe idea of package management has been around in various guises for a long time. The Linux distribution Debian introduced the APT package manager in 1999 to distribute everything from system libraries to office application suites. In the software development world, at RubyConf 2003, Ruby programmers were first introduced to the RubyGems system: a centrally-managed repository of libraries large and small which could be installed to your system with a three-word command (plus –no-rdoc –no-ri, of course).
It took a few years, but then suddenly several package management projects were announced for .NET within a relatively short space of time, some based on (and piggy-backing) RubyGems, and others taking a ground-up, self-hosted approach. All of this would probably have remained the bailiwick of open-source enthusiasts and the ALT.NET community, but then Microsoft suddenly snapped up one of the projects, brought it in-house, hosted the repository, (changed the name to NuGet) and generally made it official, and started using it to distribute their own .NET libraries.
Brave NuGet WorldSo we now have a situation where the current versions of ASP.NET MVC (3) and Entity Framework (4.1) are not a core part of the framework, but are distributed and maintained through NuGet. It seems likely that the new-and-improved WCF Web API will also appear through NuGet before we get another full framework. Of course, to use these packages, you still have to install .NET 4.0, with the now-deprecated versions of all these things in it. That’s annoying.
I’d like to see the next version of .NET, be it 4.5 or 5.0, ship with a BCL that has been stripped down to the absolute basics: fundamental types, I/O, LINQ, the Task Parallel Library and ADO.NET. I don’t want to be able to write anything but Console applications with it. I don’t want ASP.NET, MVC 4, WPF, Windows Forms, WCF, Workflow, LINQ-to-SQL, Entity Framework 5.0 or any of that stuff. Instead, I want the “Add Reference” dialog in Visual Studio 11 to show Packages where currently there are GAC-registered assemblies.
Ideally, within this new Packages reference tab, I would like to see equal weight given to third-party and open-source libraries, so that things like OpenRasta, FubuMVC, Nancy, NHibernate, Dapper and Simple.Data are presented on a par with ASP.NET and Entity Framework.
In conjunction with that, I’d like it if NuGet, the enabler of this new paradigm, were distributed as a core part of the framework, much like RubyGems is now a part of Ruby, so that when I deployed my application to a web server, desktop or shiny new “device”, it could automatically retrieve – and potentially NGen and GAC – those dependencies if they were not already present, thus reducing the size of my deployment.
By adopting this model, Microsoft could not only embrace and support the many excellent third-party solutions that exist; they could also optimise the lifecycle of their DevDiv output. No longer would a release of a new .NET version herald a massive set of breaking changes to existing libraries; no longer would releases have to wait until the combined efforts of countless development teams could be wrangled into a single MSI. A new framework version would mean the next generation of languages with their supporting classes, and potentially a new CLR version. Surely that would be easier to manage than having to wait until the WPF team have got text not to look like it’s been smeared in petroleum jelly?