I've created the issue here:
http://issues.castleproject.org/issue/CORE-27
It would be fantastic if this could be given some consideration. I
would be disheartened to learn that only 7 non-essential lines of
source code out of around 30,000 lines in Castle.Core are preventing a
single regular .NET distribution for use within NHibernate and other
libraries. Are there any known issues with the code provided? I'm
happy to do whatever legwork is needed if anyone can point me in the
right direction. As I mentioned in the issue, I am concerned about
timeliness given the upcoming NHibernate 3 release.
Patrick Earl
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Roelof Blom <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Please create an issue for this in YouTrack, referring to the commit
> on your fork.
>
> -- Roelof
>
> 2010/9/2, Patrick Earl <[email protected]>:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat
>
> --
> 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.
