Using horn is easier, once you've got it setup.

To get the latest released version of AR use
*horn -install:castle.activerecord -version:2.1.2 -mode:aptca*

When it's done you can find the AR assemblies in
*C:\hornget\.horn\ioc\castle.activerecord\Working-2.1.2\build\net-3.5\aptca*

-- Roelof.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Mauricio Scheffer <
[email protected]> wrote:

> These would be the steps to build with horn:
> Install msysgit: http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads/list
> Clone horn: git clone --depth 1 git://github.com/dagda1/horn_src.git
> Build horn by running hornbuild.bat
> Add c:\Program Files\Git\cmd to your path
> Run horn -install:castle.activerecord -mode:aptca
>
> On Feb 17, 8:50 pm, BSP <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mauricio,
> > I don't currently have git on my home PC.
> >
> > Roelof,
> > Would this be an easier path to where I need to be? Install git and
> > grab this from horn rather than installing Nant and running the build
> > from the subversion repository?
> >
> > Thanks guys,
> > B
> >
> > On Feb 17, 6:40 am, Mauricio Scheffer <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Did you try horn? It already includes nant and it takes care of all
> > > dependencies, DLL copying, etc.
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 1:02 am, BSP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Gave it a shot Roelof. Got all of the SVN trunks pulled down and the
> > > > directory structure set up. Step 5 is where I go sideways because I
> > > > don't have NAnt. Tried the build.cmd in the buildscript directory,
> but
> > > > I get an MSBuild error "Only one project can be specified." I even
> > > > opened up the solution in the src directory in DevSutdio and tried to
> > > > build. Get a bunch of Warnings as Errors ... varying things are not
> > > > CLS-compliant in one both of the log projects in the solution.
> > > > Probably not a huge issue since I did get a clean Core build, but I'm
> > > > not sure exactly how to specify the build options needed ... the -D
> > > > options from the command line tools ... so the build of Core I got
> > > > probably wouldn't work anyway.
> >
> > > > So, I now come to a question ... do I need to install Nant to run the
> > > > build from the command line? I'd really rather not keep loading more
> > > > and more software on my computer just to be able to build this one
> > > > thing. I normally don't delve this far off into OSS land, and loading
> > > > up all of the OS build toolsets for this one project wouldn't be my
> > > > first choice as a solution to my problem.
> >
> > > > I appreciate your help and I'll continue to monitor the group for any
> > > > updates.
> >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > B
> >
> > > > On Feb 16, 8:36 am, BSP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Roelof. I'll give this a go tonight after work
> > > > > and post my results here.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > B
> >
> > > > > On Feb 16, 2:54 am, Roelof Blom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Hi,
> >
> > > > > > To build Windsor with APTCA you'll need to jump through the
> following hoops:
> >
> > > > > >    1. svn cohttps://
> svn.castleproject.org/svn/castle/Core/trunkCore
> > > > > >    2. svn cohttps://
> svn.castleproject.org/svn/Castle/DynamicProxy/trunkDynamicProxy
> > > > > >    3. svn co
> > > > > >
> https://svn.castleproject.org/svn/Castle/InversionOfControl/trunkInve...
> > > > > >    4. cd Core
> > > > > >    5. nant -D:assembly.allow-partially-trusted-callers=true
> > > > > >    -D:common.run-tests=false -D:project.config=release
> > > > > >    6. copy /y build\net-3.5\release\Castle.Core.*
> > > > > >    ..\DynamicProxy\lib\net-3.5
> > > > > >    7. copy /y build\net-3.5\release\Castle.Core.*
> > > > > >    ..\InversionOfControl\lib\net-3.5
> > > > > >    8. copy /y build\net-3.5\release\Castle.Services.*
> > > > > >    ..\InversionOfControl\lib\net-3.5
> > > > > >    9. cd ..\DynamicProxy
> > > > > >    10. nant -D:assembly.allow-partially-trusted-callers=true
> > > > > >    -D:common.run-tests=false -D:project.config=release
> > > > > >    11. copy /y build\net-3.5\release\Castle.DynamicProxy2.*
> > > > > >    ..\InversionOfControl\lib\net-3.5
> > > > > >    12. cd ..\InversionOfControl
> > > > > >    13. nant -D:assembly.allow-partially-trusted-callers=true
> > > > > >    -D:common.run-tests=false -D:project.config=release
> >
> > > > > > You can find the APTCA assemblies in
> > > > > > InversionOfControl\build\net-3.5\release.
> > > > > > Please let me know if this worked for you.
> >
> > > > > > I am the first to agree that this is a lot work, and back before
> we split
> > > > > > the trunk into individual projects, with binary instead of source
> > > > > > dependencies, this used to be a lot easier. I don't know if
> hornget
> > > > > > <http://code.google.com/p/hornget/>has a mode to build with
> APTCA.
> >
> > > > > > -- Roelof.
> >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:43 AM, BSP <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reply Hammett.
> >
> > > > > > > Thing is, it's just frustrating to get jazzed about something,
> then
> > > > > > > not be able to put it into play. I'm fairly stoked about MVC
> and I can
> > > > > > > do it without IoC, but I'd really rather not. I'm sure the
> > > > > > > implications of running medium vs. full trust are significant,
> but as
> > > > > > > far as I can tell from my blog browsing the last few days after
> work,
> > > > > > > there seem to be a large number of providers running under
> medium
> > > > > > > trust. I'm personally using godaddy (for now ... but probably
> not for
> > > > > > > long) and it seems there are many others. At least now I know
> one more
> > > > > > > thing to ask about when I'm shopping other hosts.
> >
> > > > > > > As for my current situation, it seems it would be better for
> someone
> > > > > > > familiar with the project to run a stable build with the
> partial trust
> > > > > > > setting rather than having someone completely unfamiliar with
> the code
> > > > > > > base trying to fire one off. I know the idea behind OS it to
> get
> > > > > > > people involved, but I just pulled down around 150 MB of code
> and dlls
> > > > > > > that I've never seen before and ran a build process that I
> obviously
> > > > > > > don't know how to diagnose problems with. It seems too that
> with the
> > > > > > > amount of dialog I've read on it, there are going to be people
> (like
> > > > > > > me) that don't know what they are doing flubbing the build in
> growing
> > > > > > > numbers. And the MS MVC dlls that I had to bin deploy seem fine
> ... so
> > > > > > > I assume they are ok with medium trust.
> >
> > > > > > > And, I'm not trying to bag on the contributors. Castle seems
> pretty
> > > > > > > top notch and introduces a cool new way to do things. But, a
> partial
> > > > > > > trust build would sure hit the spot. :)
> >
> > > > > > > Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this chain and hopefully have some
> free
> > > > > > > time this week to try and get a good build going with the
> appropriate
> > > > > > > flags. It's just a really time consuming process ...
> >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > B
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 16, 12:18 am, hammett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I hear you, but it's not a simple solution. It wont matter if
> us aptca
> > > > > > > > all our code, our dependencies (and their dependencies) also
> need to
> > > > > > > > do it. Security is pervasive thing and so far OSS projects
> dont seem
> > > > > > > > to be paying much attention to it. aptca has a big security
> > > > > > > > implication, that's why I think the castle team doesnt
> provide a
> > > > > > > > ready-to-use build with it.
> >
> > > > > > > > The simplest solution is security transparency, but even that
> is
> > > > > > > > complicated in .net 3.5. In v4.0 things got simplified and
> I'm hoping
> > > > > > > > castle team will make an effort to adopt it and persuade
> others to do
> > > > > > > > the same, as to lower the amount of hassle it creates for our
> users.
> >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, BSP <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Guys, I'm trying to learn MS MVC. I bought Steve
> Sanderson's book Pro
> > > > > > > > > MVC which praises Castle throughout most of the book. It is
> all slick
> > > > > > > > > and works well on my local machine. I've really enjoyed
> learning the
> > > > > > > > > basics of IoC. Problem: As soon as I try to deploy to a
> medium trust
> > > > > > > > > environment, no go.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I've spent the last two days trying to figure out a way to
> get this
> > > > > > > > > going. I've read countless posts, googled till I can google
> no more,
> > > > > > > > > and all signs point to a full rebuild of the Castle
> project. Now,
> > > > > > > > > frankly, that's more than I bargained for with the purchase
> of the
> > > > > > > > > book, but I like the technology and I'm a developer ... I
> know how to
> > > > > > > > > use SVN ... what the hey right? The link I originally found
> on this
> > > > > > > > > group here (http://tinyurl.com/yhj5yga) posted by 'Roelof'
> pointed me
> > > > > > > > > to an SVN location. I grabbed the code, ran the build
> command and it
> > > > > > > > > all blowed up on the same error the above poster is having.
> So now I'm
> > > > > > > > > really getting frustrated. I really don't have the time to
> debug the
> > > > > > > > > reasons I can't grab a large base of code off the net and
> get it to
> > > > > > > > > build on my crappy home Vista box. I'm sure the reasons are
> many and
> > > > > > > > > varied. Mark, from above, has made it farther than I could
> in a week.
> >
> > > > > > > > > So, my question is this. Would it be at all possible to get
> someone
> > > > > > > > > involved in this project to create a medium trust build and
> post it to
> > > > > > > > > the project site? It seems to be a fairly common request.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You'd be hooking all of us
> medium-trust-crappy-host-service-provider-
> > > > > > > > > having-slugs up and we'd really owe you one.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > B
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> What's the best way to check whether APTCA is being
> applied?
> >
> > > > > > > > >> So far I've been testing for it through trial and error as
> I'm not
> > > > > > > > >> aware of a better way...
> >
> > > > > > > > >> If I use a build without the
> -D:assembly.allow-partially-trusted-
> > > > > > > > >> callers=true argument when I try to use active record in
> medium trust
> > > > > > > > >> I get a SecurityException at:
> >
> > > > > > > > >> IConfigurationSource source =
> ActiveRecordSectionHandler.Instance;
> >
> > > > > > > > >> With the allow-partially-trusted-callers=true it makes it
> to the line
> > > > > > > > >> in ActiveRecordStarter.cs that I referenced in my earlier
> post.
> >
> > > > > > > > >> I've tried adding [assembly:
> AllowPartiallyTrustedCallersAttribute] to
> > > > > > > > >> the ActiveRecordModelBuilder.cs file but when I try to
> compile it, I
> > > > > > > > >> receive the compile error:
> >
> > > > > > > > >> CS0579: Duplicate 'AllowPartiallyTrustedCallersAttribute'
> >
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > > > >> Mark
> >
> > > > > > > > >> On Feb 15, 7:56 pm, hammett <[email protected]> wrote:>
> Could you
> > > > > > > check whether the APTCA is being applied to the
> > > > > > > > >> > castle.activerecord.dll?...
> >
> > read more ยป
>
> --
> 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]<castle-project-users%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to