Mainly because some of the other projects in Castle started using new types from 3.5. In the future, ARLINQ will be integrated into the core AR, which also needs 3.5.
Currently, you could rebuild with a 3.5 compiler targetting 2.0sp1. There are not very much uses of 3.5 classes in core AR, which must be removed then. OTOH, downloading 3.5 is way simpler than backpatching AR to net-2.0. -Markus 2009/7/31 John Simons <[email protected]> > Because of its new features/api (LINQ, .....) and net 2.0 is old > (released in 2005!) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gerdus van Zyl <[email protected]> > *To:* Castle Project Users <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, 31 July, 2009 6:45:47 PM > *Subject:* AR Active Record .net 2.0 combatability > > > Hi, > > Will the imminent release of activerecord 2.0 support .net runtime > version 2.0 sp1? Currently our product uses .net 2.0 because of its > much smaller download size (25 vs 80mb). I tried to build the > activerecord trunk for .net 2.0 but failed because of a 3.5 feature > HashSet. > > If only 3.5 will be supported could you please give me the rationale > behind it; will make it easier to convince the boss that 3.5 is really > necessary :-) > > Thank You, > Gerdus van Zyl > > ------------------------------ > Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me > how<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/mobile/tagline/*http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail> > . > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
