On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM, James Curran <[email protected]>wrote:
> A strong-named assembly cannot use a non-string-named assembly. > Yes, absolutely. > Since many of Castle's parts (like Windsor, DP and ActiveRecord), are > used as building blocks of third-party tools -- which themselves might > be strong-named, our assemblied must be. > I guess might is the keyword here, whereas everyone above said the GAC is evil so they don't need strong named assemblies in their applications. Currently, I am considering just flicking the switch in the CLR header to state the assembly is not strong named for my own purposes: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/security/StrongNameRemove20.aspx http://www.nirsoft.net/dot_net_tools/strong_name_remove.html Truth, > James > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:23 AM, John Simons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Why are we strong naming the Castle assemblies? > > As far as I know it doesn't really gives us any benefits, if we didn't > > strong name assemblies we wouldn't have problems like this: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/4a2cdffa18ab6583 > > -- > 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.
