Ignoring all the talk about ActiveRecord client profile support, what
about the Castle.Core picture? NHibernate is going to release soon
and it'd be nice if there was only a single Castle.Core.dll to
distribute. Are there concerns with the patch I've created? Haven't
heard anything except one positive reply. Should I also submit it as
an issue?
Patrick Earl
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> I recall thinking that would come up but for whatever reason I didn't
> deal with it in the original patch. I just pushed a version that
> should deal with that problem. The trick utilized is new to me, so if
> anyone has any better ideas I'm welcome to hear them.
>
> http://github.com/patearl/Castle.Core/commit/c264dd7ecbf1ba3c39219563cd879fa29a6c1d29
>
> Patrick Earl
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM, John Simons <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> The idea is good, but at the moment you have hardcoded the loading of
>> System.Web to .Net 2.0, how about .Net 4.0?
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Patrick Earl <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Mon, 30 August, 2010 7:41:16 AM
>> Subject: Castle.Core Client Profile Support
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Just to get some administrivia out of the way, I tried submitting a
>> pull request as detailed on this page:
>>
>> http://stw.castleproject.org/(S(su2mgm45fclhqe55veo40545))/How-to-submit-a-fix-to-any-Castle-Project.ashx
>> Unfortunately, no default recipients were checked and GitHub wouldn't
>> let me send it without one. Not being sure who to send it to, it's
>> coming here instead.
>>
>> I've created a changeset that allows Castle.Core to support the client
>> profile and full profile without forcing the distribution of two
>> separate versions. This has the following benefits.
>>
>> 1. Users don't need to be educated on the selection of one assembly or
>> another.
>> 2. Users don't need to create a more complicated build process that
>> selects between client / full for their own projects and libraries.
>> 3. Reduced complexity of build / distribution process for Castle.Core.
>> 4. Simplified compile checks (can leave client profile target
>> enabled) ensure that new code works with client profile.
>> 5. Other projects, such as NHibernate, don't need to decide upon or
>> distribute multiple versions to suite both profiles.
>> 6. The link between Castle.Core and System.Web is quite small
>> (WebLogger only depends on 6 properties / methods from 2 classes in
>> System.Web).
>>
>> It has the following drawbacks:
>>
>> 1. There is more code, though this is mitigated through the use of a
>> common tested reflection helper.
>> 2. There is a small performance penalty when using the WebLogger class.
>>
>> The code can be found on a fork here:
>>
>> http://github.com/patearl/Castle.Core/commit/654e268f27a3a110b34eca1e8047ab091c1929c6
>>
>> Given the tremendous benefits and minor drawbacks of this approach, I
>> would highly recommend this code be applied. If there's anything I
>> can do to make this happen more smoothly, please let me know.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
--
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.
