I am not sure if ILMerge is up to it, but ilmerg'ing Castle.ActiveRecord.Web.dll back into Castle.ActiveRecord.dll could be an option. This way we can distribute a Client Profile version (AR.dll + AR.Web.dll) and a Full version (AR.dll merged).
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > As new thoughts on a long-term solution to this issue, I would propose that > a packaging system (such as NuPack) be used. Users could simply install the > ActiveRecord package and have references to Castle.ActiveRecord and > Castle.ActiveRecord.Web added automatically. I believe it's better to have > a packaging system that pulls together necessary assemblies than to > complicate build processes significantly by putting optional integration > classes into a single assembly. > > Patrick Earl > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm upgrading to the latest Castle.ActiveRecord again today. To not have >> a complicated build process, I'm going to be using the following structure: >> >> WPF Application >> -> Pleasant.DB >> ---> Castle.ActiveRecord (web session management stripped out) >> >> Web Application >> -> Pleasant.DB >> ---> Castle.ActiveRecord (web session management stripped out) >> -> Castle.ActiveRecord.Web >> >> After further consideration, I think this solution is preferable to the >> runtime approach (which also requires a breaking change for >> SessionScopeWebModule). >> >> As there's no official support for the client profile and the suggested >> support technique (#if) still requires a separate assembly for web code, >> I'll be maintaining these changes on my fork for people with similar needs: >> >> http://github.com/patearl/Castle.ActiveRecord >> >> Patrick >> >> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Thanks for clarifying that. I thought there was more use of System.Web. >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Other than the IHttpModule, the only thing ActiveRecord accesses from >>>> System.Web is HttpContext.Current.Items. The integration surface is >>>> very small. >>>> >>>> Patrick Earl >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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]<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. > -- 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.
