Yes, I don't want to change any namespaces.
And I agree that making it Castle.Core.dll is probably the most sensible
idea. The Logging and few other things do have to live in that assembly
(rest can be safely moved to newly merged Castle.Windsor.dll incl.
current Castle.MicroKernel) so it's more logical to have things like
logging adapters in Foo.Core than in Foo.DynamicProxy...
We just will have to take extra care to make it extremely obvious that
DP did not disappear from the face of the earth, and that its safe and
sound in the new assembly.
Krzysztof
On 2010-02-08 22:42, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
We should keep the number until v3 to avoid confusion and avoid
breaking things.
I was under the assumption that we would merge DP into Core for v3, so
there is no issue with having a number in the filename post-v2.
My understanding was that we wanted to get rid of the DP DLL because
very few people using Castle Core wouldn't already be using DP. I
assume we plan to keep the current Castle.DynamicProxy namespace when
it moves inside Castle.Core.dll, rather than making it
Castle.Core.DynamicProxy or something. Which means it becomes more
System.Core like.
When the 2 merge, I would vote for versioning Castle.Core at 3.0.
I'm -1 for renaming Castle.Core.dll. I think it would cause more
confusion by changing everything other than just dropping DP inside
Castle.Core.dll. A screenshot of reflector with Castle.Core.dll open
on the DP home page would probably make things really obvious to
anyone who visits.
2010/2/9 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Perhaps we should just ditch the 2 instead?
Trunk is going to become v3 anyway so I see no point in having a
number in the assembly version.
Another issue altogether is that if we would merge Core (parts) +
DynamicProxy + (perhaps) DictionaryAdapter maybe a new assembly
name altogether would make sense, like making it Castle.Core.dll,
although we would have to have a very clear message somewhere to
route people looking for DP or DA to the new Core... or perhaps
just Castle.dll...
I don't know, I'm just throwing ideas out as they run through my
head right now.
Krzysztof
On 2010-02-08 11:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
The Visual Studio project outputs Castle.DynamicProxy.dll while
nant outputs Castle.DynamicProxy2.dll.
I think the only reason the VS project doesn't have the 2 is that
its namespace doesn't have a 2 and it was like that since the
beginning so we could run 1 and 2 side-by-side. If no one
objects, I will fix the VS project to always output with a 2
which is a non-breaking change.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Julian Birch
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi, the Castle Windsor csproj references a
"Castle.DynamicProxy2.dll". The Castle DP project compiles
to Castle.DynamicProxy.dll. Now, I understand that once this
might have made sense, but isn't it just unnecessary friction
these days? It seems that the only way to determine that
this DLL is related to the project is to read the XML on one
side and hit reflection on the other.
If there isn't a good reason for it, could someone fix it please?
Julian.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:castle-project-devel%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
--
Jono
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:castle-project-devel%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
--
Jono
--
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.
--
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.
