Makes sense for me. Cheers, Henry Conceição
2010/2/11 Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>: > 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]. >> > > 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. >> > > > > -- > 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.
