+0

On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Krzysztof Koźmic wrote:

> ok, what do other committers think about this?
> 
> I'm gonna release 2.5.1 over the weekend so we need to make a
> decision.
> 
> I'm really indifferent here so +0 - but I'm willing to include this if
> that's what majority wants. So, what it's gonna be?
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 9, 4:17 pm, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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/c264dd7ecbf1ba3c39219563...
>> 
>>>>>        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-sub...
>>>>>> 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/654e268f27a3a110b34eca1e...
>> 
>>>>>> 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 
>>> 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.
> 

-- 
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.

Reply via email to