I understand that some users use strong names and that is why I posted links to the tools to remove the strong naming. At this point in time I also think strong naming is the right default.
So maybe the alternative is to not increment the assembly version but the file version for hotfix/patch releases (i.e. 2.0.1, 2.0.2). Which means that you could just drop in a patch release without worrying about updating dependant libraries, this then ensures the user is using compatible versions and allows us to fix bugs that don't break public interfaces. 2010/2/11 Krzysztof Koźmic (2) <[email protected]> > 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]<castle-project-devel%[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]<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.
