On 2010-02-08 22:52, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
2010/2/9 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
There are?
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]
<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.
