On 2010-02-08 22:55, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I don't know, just guessing. Maybe it is being underneath their own Windsor like abstraction, no idea. Maybe no one does this.

But we do want to let people know that you don't need the MK.dll anymore.
Yeah, definitely we don't want anyone to think it just disappeared into the thin air,

2010/2/9 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>

    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]
    <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.

Reply via email to