Hi Per, Silverlight is as dead as a dodo. There will be no new versions, and Microsoft made it quite clear building new apps on Silverlight might be not the best way to go if those apps are to be long lived.
As for the reason - Castle is a community driven project. Nobody gets payed for working on in, and we do it purely because it's fun. Well almost, maintaining Silverlight support has never really been fun and it ended up taking more time and effort than I was hoping it would, and I think everyone would rather dedicate their free time to making the overall project better, than to fixing compatibility issues in Silverlight. Especially that in many cases it was holding us back. We'd need to make compromises, or end up writing a lot more code to compensate for Silverlight's missing features and it lagging behind .NET So the combination of those three: Silverlight being a dead end, never being very popular, and the effort it takes to maintain the compatibility, lead to the decision to stop providing official version for it. Currently the plan is to release version 3.2 with Silverlight 4 and 5 support, and drop it completely immediately after (v4.0 branch for DynamicProxy is already being developed with just full .NET framework in mind). Obviously, the project is open for contributions so if someone steps in and is willing to take on keeping the Silverlight support in, in a production quality code, then I can see no reason to refuse Silverlight support in the future. The decision was purely pragmatic, not dogmatic. -- Krzysztof Kozmic On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 6:18 PM, Lundberg, Per wrote: > Hi, > > I read on the > http://www.castleproject.org/blog/2012/08/windsor-and-core-3-1-released/ page > that you are considering dropping Silverlight support. > This is very bad news for us. We have numerous (30-40 different actually) > applications running on the Silverlight platform, LOB stuff which are not > targeting the Internet at large but are of a more “intranet” style. Since > we’ve based our entire application framework on Castle (Core + Windsor), we > rely quite heavily on the stuff that Castle provides. > > Of course, we could let our Silverlight version of the application framework > depend on an older version of Castle Core/Windsor (which will be the case if > you go on as you’ve planned), but that’s a pain since the framework is > currently cross platform with 90-95% of the code being shared between our WPF > and Silverlight code bases. Having to rely on different versions of Castle > stuff is definitely a step in the wrong direction from our perspective. > > What is the reasoning behind this? I know that there are rumours about > Silverlight being “dead”, but I don’t think these should be taken so > seriously. It’s still a quite viable platform for certain types of > applications, which have to run inside a web browser for one reason or > another. > > I strongly urge you to reconsider this move. If it’s a matter of you not > having enough resources to support Silverlight, let me know and I’ll see what > we can do to help. > > Best regards, > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > PER LUNDBERG Software Engineer > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) www.ecraft.com > (http://www.ecraft.com/) > > tel. +358 (0) 20 759 8687 > eCraft Oy Ab, Wolffskavägen 36, FI-65200 Vasa > > > > -- > 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] > (mailto:[email protected]). > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > (mailto:[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.
