I'm +1 for sticking to strongly named assemblies. It may be some more headache for us, but is less headache for users.
Krzysztof On 11 Lut, 11:11, Fabian Schmied <[email protected]> wrote: > >http://www.codeplex.com/Signer > > Are you implying that any project that uses Castle and needs its > assemblies to be strong-named should just use Signer and sign them by > itself? > > If so, I think this would be a very bad default. Libraries should be > strong-named so that they can be reused in strong-named applications > and other libraries. Everything else would be an unpleasant surprise. > If someone really needs a version of the Castle stack without strong > naming (for whatever reason), he or she should be required remove the > strong names, not the other way around. > > What are the actual arguments in favor of removing strong names? > > The posting cited by John > (http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thr... > ) seems to me an argument for releasing (or re-releasing the same > version with updated references) more often rather than just removing > strong names. .NET provides facilities to use newer versions of > referenced libraries (assembly dependency rebinding), and that > mechanism is very explicit for a good reason: it can easily break > something if the newer version isn't fully backwards compatible. > > The argument that the snk is publicly available anyway is a good one. > But I'd rather solve it by having a private key for official builds > that is not in source control and available to only a limited number > of people. E.g. Castle Stronghold, or the PMC. > > Fabian > > > On Feb 11, 7:40 pm, James Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A strong-named assembly cannot use a non-string-named assembly. > >> 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. > > >> 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/thr... > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://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.
