It's not really that.
We need a sharper tool than ILMerge, because Core as it stands today
will have to be split and part of it merged with DP, while majority
would move to new Windsor.
Plus we don't really need to maintain that many projects which proved to
be not such a great idea.
Krzysztof
On 2010-02-09 00:03, John Simons wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked before, but how about using ilmerge to
merge Core + DP into one single file?
If the benefit of merging the projects is so that we end up with only
one file, then we may as well use ilmerge and keep the projects
separate.
Cheers
John
On Feb 9, 8:56 am, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
wrote:
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 Ko�mic<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
On 2010-02-08 22:52, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
2010/2/9 Krzysztof Ko�mic<[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 Ko�mic<[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
...
read more>>
--
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.
