I tried that and, oddly enough, if you put more than one StrongNameIdentityPermissionAttributeon a method, the compiler produces an empty permission set. Looks like a bug to me, but I have to stop looking at it for a while...
-Mike http://staff.develop.com/woodring http://www.develop.com/devresources ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marsh, Drew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [DOTNET] StrongNameIdentityPermissionAttribute with Security. Demand Confus ion > Dave Serrano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > > The next question, does anyone know of a way to union > > permissions in the attribute? I noticed the > > 'StrongNameIdentityPermission' has a method to union > > permissions but this is not available in the > > 'StrongNameIdentityPermissionAttribute' class. I'm not sure > > it even makes sense but am thinking that I would like to > > union my public key and the framework's so this exception > > wouldn't be thrown. Does this make sense? I'm just thinking > > out loud here but wouldn't it make sense to do the demand all > > the way up the call stack or is the 'LinkDemand' sufficient > > in everyone's mind? Better yet, can anyone think of a reason > > why I wouldn't want to do this (grant permission to the framework)? > > I not 100% certain, but I *think* you can apply more than one instance of > the attribute and the runtime will take the different declarations and union > them together. I don't have time to check, but let us know what happens. > > HTH, > Drew > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
