> > Core and DO will build with the 2.0 csc why? what's wrong with 3.5 csc targeting 2.0 (which means - no extra dlls like System.Core etc., and will run smoothly on .NET 2.0 machine with service packs)
personally I think that 2.0 compatibility is not needed. People who use open-source would also use .net 3.5 On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > That should have read: > > Castle Core and DP will build with the 2.0 csc and run on .NET 2.0. > Internally Core uses ReaderWriterLockSlim when built with 3.5 but drops back > under a 2.0 build. > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> but drops back under a 2.0 build.Castle Core and DP will build with the >> 2.0 csc and run on .NET 2.0. Internally Core uses ReaderWriterLockSlim when >> built with 3.5. >> >> Ayende can provide details for MK and Windsor. >> >> Ken, are you interested in making a .NET 2.0 release if it is feasible? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> curious: is there any c#3 specific code in the release? (I do not mean >>> the use of var/lambdas/initialisers which can be used by c#2 client code, >>> but about stuff from System.Core.dll like Expression<> and the System.Linq >>> extension methods) >>> ? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Richard Fleming <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Ayende, >>>> >>>> Issue FACILITIES-ISSUE-111, which was logged as an issue with the >>>> startable facility that is a part of the Microkernel/Windsor set, actually >>>> resolves an issue within Windsor itself. >>>> >>>> Since it was logged as a bug in the startable facility that I manage, I >>>> resolved the issue and created a unit test to test for the problem. >>>> However >>>> I am a non-committer, so the issue has not been resolved in trunk as of >>>> yet. >>>> >>>> Please review and consider the patch that is attached to the issue when >>>> working to provide a release. >>>> >>>> The issue is here: >>>> >>>> http://support.castleproject.org/projects/FACILITIES/issues/view/FACILITIES-ISSUE-111 >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Rick Fleming >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> - increase the version number (1.0.4.revision) to help distinctify RC3+ >>>>>> from RTM+ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I remember Hammett mentioning at some point he suggested just jumping >>>>> to 1.1 to make it really clear, since 1.0 has basically been a 2 year >>>>> rolling release off the trunk. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jono >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ken Egozi. >>> http://www.kenegozi.com/blog >>> http://www.delver.com >>> http://www.musicglue.com >>> http://www.castleproject.org >>> http://www.gotfriends.co.il >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Jono > > > > -- > Jono > > > > -- Ken Egozi. http://www.kenegozi.com/blog http://www.delver.com http://www.musicglue.com http://www.castleproject.org http://www.gotfriends.co.il --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
