I'm thinking about making Monorail 3.5 dependent. For one, using Expression trees will allow the addition of stuff like RedirectTo<FooController>(foo=>foo.Bar(5)); and eliminate most of the need in the CodeGenerator
on the other hand, I can keep MR in a 2.0 compatible state, throw the extras in a separate assembly, then after the release merge it back into the main assembly (so MR1.2(?) will be 3.5+ only) On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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) >> > > There is nothing wrong with using the 3.5 csc, I was just making the point > that it does work. Our build system isn't currently set up to use the 3.5 > csc and the 2.0 preprocessor defines. > > >> personally I think that 2.0 compatibility is not needed. People who use >> open-source would also use .net 3.5 >> > > I was thinking the same thing, especially that these are new releases. The > only reason I kept 2.0 compatibility for Core and DP is that other OSS still > wants to support .net 2.0. > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
