I agree with Julian, I think ilmerge would complicate things and is not the right solution in this case.
DP is really at the core of things; it is not just about reducing the number of assemblies. I have fixed the VS project to output with the number 2. For v3, the code will live in Castle.Core.dll so we won't need to worry about changing this number later. 2010/2/9 Julian Birch <[email protected]> > I'm inclined to regard ILMerge as a solution in search of a problem. One > assembly = one csproj seems a relatively simple model. I don't really see > what ILMerging would achieve other than making it harder to figure out where > the source code was. It's the thing I dislike most about the nServiceBus > code base. > > More generally, I don't think any tool will achieve the kind of movements > we're talking about. It'd only work if the namespaces were separated as > carefully as assemblies, which they aren't.They've pretty much got to be > done by hand. > > Anyway, to return to the original subject matter, could someone either > change Windsor to use Castle.DynamicProxy.dll or the DP csproj to compile to > Castle.DynamicProxy2.dll? > Julian > 2010/2/9 John Simons <[email protected]> > > What do you mean by "Core as it stands today will have to be split and >> part of it merged with DP, while majority would move to new >> Windsor." ? >> Also, by projects I mean VS projects not Castle projects, so having >> many VS projects that get ilmerged together for shipping, I don't see >> that as a disadvantage/maintenance overhead. >> >> Cheers >> John >> >> On Feb 9, 6:02 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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 Koďż˝mic<[email protected] >> > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > >> > >>> On 2010-02-08 22:52, Jonathon Rossi wrote: >> > >> > >>>> 2010/2/9 Krzysztof Koďż˝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 Koďż˝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]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> >> > >>>>>> <mailto: >> castle-project-devel%[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] >> > >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> >> > >>>>>> <mailto: >> [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[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]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> >> > >>>>> <mailto: >> castle-project-devel%[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] >> > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> > >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> >> > >>>>> <mailto: >> [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[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 >> > >> > ... >> > >> > 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]<castle-project-devel%[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]<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.
