Yeah, I thought about that and am not opposed to it. But typically I think of actual API changes in major version changes and, while the supported frameworks changed, the underlying api surface did not. I do think moving to 2.x does sort of signal to users that 'breaking stuff may have occurred'.
I'm up for whatever, though. ~Derek -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Bish <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AMQNET-565: .net standard port On 4/17/19 11:10 AM, Heiser, Derek wrote: > Hello all, > > I wanted to try my hand at this feature request: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQNET/issues/AMQNET-565?filter=allopenissues > to port ActiveMQ to .Net Standard. I’ve started working on a fork here: > https://github.com/killnine/activemq-nms-api/tree/refactor but wanted some > feedback from contributors before I sink too much time in. > > The current build (1.7.2) supports .net 2.0, 3.5, and 4.0. > > Net standard 2.0, by default, supports back to 4.6.1. I’ve looked into > supporting multiple target frameworks (for instance, .net standard 1.2 > supports 4.5.1) but there are some pretty gnarly conflicts (ex: > System.Transactions, NUnit 3, serialization attributes) between even .net > standard 1.2 and the latest .net standard. > > My recommendation would be to treat 1.7.2 as the legacy package and make > this change a 1.8.0 build as a fresh start to support 4.6.1 and above with > netstandard 2.0. I thing we could update the README to explain the support > for earlier frameworks. I totally understand the need to support older > platforms, but I think keeping 1.7.2 around and moving forward ensures we > aren’t hamstrung by the very clear direction from Microsoft that Netstandard > is the way forward. My advice would be to move to v2.0 for the API and any new client releases of NMS.ActiveMQ (or other already released NMS clients) as that makes it more clear that fundamental changes in supported .NET SDKs are present as well as leaving room for breaking API changes etc. > There’s other issues I’d like to address with the solution > organization but figured this was the biggest point of discussion > right now… > > I’m on the Slack channel if you want to discuss off the record 😉 > > Thanks! > > Derek Heiser > Follow Us: Facebook<http://www.qg.com/social1> | > Twitter<http://www.qg.com/social2> | > LinkedIn<http://www.qg.com/social3> | > YouTube<http://www.qg.com/social4> -- Tim Bish
