+1 Make it as easy as possible for the ignorant user to be successful.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:51 PM, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I think we simplifying things even further. > At the moment If I give u Castle.Core.dll, u have no idea if it is the full > or the cp. (And I'm not even going to discuss if it is SL or not) > This way there wouldn't be any confusion. > > Also, the number of distributed assemblies will be exactly the same: > 1x CP, 1x Web, 1xSL4 instead of 1xFull, 1x CP, 1xSL4. > > And regarding the number of referenced assemblies, is that really a big > problem? > > Cheers > John > > > ________________________________ > From: Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 1 September, 2010 11:44:00 AM > Subject: Re: Castle.ActiveRecord Client Profile Support > > If we split every assembly into two where it has dependences on the extended > profile (even just for 1 class) then don't we complicate things more because > people need to remember you need this other assembly with a few extra > classes. > > Doesn't this also confuse the silverlight support every further, since the > main DLL will usually have code that isn't supported on Silverlight; then > WP7 will another with a subset of Silverlight. -- 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.
