2010/2/9 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> > 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. > Definitely. The same for MicroKernel because there is very likely people out there that use MK and not Windsor.
> > 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]> > >> 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]> 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]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<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]<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]<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.
