You know you've been working too long when it takes a minute or so to realize that the intent of "PIA" was "pain in the ass" rather than "Primary Interop Assembly"...
Wayne M. Bradney Chief Application Architect, Derivatives & Structured Products Wall Street Systems, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10104 Phone: +1 212 809 7200 Direct Dial: +1 212 401 8239 Email: wayne.brad...@wallstreetsystems.com Web: www.wallstreetsystems.com Wall Street Systems – Empowering Treasury, Trading and Settlement -----Original Message----- From: Neil Haughton [mailto:neil.haugh...@autoscribe.co.uk] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:32 AM To: Log4NET User Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? Sounds like a good compromise. Strong naming can be a real PIA if you don't actually want the "benefits" it brings. Regards, Neil Haughton BSc MIET IEng(CEI) Development Manager Autoscribe Limited Wellington House Riseley Business Park Basingstoke Road, Riseley Berkshire RG7 1NW Office: +44 (0) 118 984 0610 Fax: +44 (0) 118 984 0611 Visit our website at: www.autoscribe.co.uk Registered in Wales No: 1539748 **********************************************************DISCLAIMER***************************************************** The contents of this email are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error then please accept our apology. If this is the case we would be obliged if you would contact the sender and then delete this email. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Autoscribe Ltd. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus no responsibility is accepted by Autoscribe Ltd for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. ********************************************************************************************************************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: Walden H. Leverich [mailto:wald...@techsoftinc.com] > Sent: 06 April 2009 16:28 > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? > > > A strong name includes the version number as well as the key. > > And that's the problem. Any change that results in a new version # > (even a trivial build # jump) means you need to fix the references. I > actually find the GAC not very useful. Sure, core .NET files should be > there, but I can drop the log4net DLL in my bin directory just as > easily. The nice thing about the GAC is that you could drop an > "upgrade" there and everything would get the advantage of the upgrade, > however, because the version # is part of the strong name you'd have to > visit everything anyway to tweak the .config files. Just simpler to > drop log4net.dll where I need it. > > Perhaps there should be two "official" releases, one signed one not. > Then for companies that require "official AND signed" there's a > solution, but for companies that simply require "official" there's also > a solution. Of course that would require that 3rd party tools build > w/out requiring a specific version to be of any use. > > -Walden > > -- > Walden H Leverich III > Tech Software > (516) 627-3800 x3051 > wald...@techsoftinc.com > http://www.TechSoftInc.com > > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: daniel.nite...@o-i.com [mailto:daniel.nite...@o-i.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:51 AM > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? > > A strong name includes the version number as well as the key. > Strong naming is also required for installation in to the GAC, which I > find useful for utilities such as > loggers. > > 2 cents, > > Dan > > > > > "Simon Tamman" > <sptam...@parkeon.com> > > To > 04/06/2009 10:48 AM "Log4NET User" > <log4net-user@logging.apache.org> > > cc > > Please respond to > Subject > "Log4NET User" RE: When will the > next version be released? > <log4net-u...@logging.apache. > org> > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't they use the same private key across upgrades? I would assume > they would. The strong naming > afaik is to ensure that people can't create "unoffial" releases with > the claim that they're official > releases. I figured it was for legal and integrity reasons. > > Simon > > From: Walden H. Leverich [mailto:wald...@techsoftinc.com] > Sent: 06 April 2009 15:43 > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? > > > Because if you don’t, surely you risk breaking existing applications > when you upgrade log4net? > > You might. But that's a decision and assessment that I can make when I > choose to do the upgrade. I can > (somewhat) see the point on two DLLs (or DLL and EXE) that are part of > the same package. Say the GUI > front-end .exe and the business logic implementation .dll. But for a > utility like log4net strong naming > just doesn't make sense to me. > > -Walden > > -- > Walden H Leverich III > Tech Software > (516) 627-3800 x3051 > wald...@techsoftinc.com > http://www.TechSoftInc.com > > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > From: Neil Haughton [mailto:neil.haugh...@autoscribe.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:27 AM > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? > > Because if you don’t, surely you risk breaking existing applications > when you upgrade log4net? > > Regards, > > Neil Haughton BSc MIET IEng(CEI) > Development Manager > > Autoscribe Limited > Wellington House > Riseley Business Park > Basingstoke Road, Riseley > Berkshire RG7 1NW > > Office: +44 (0) 118 984 0610 > Fax: +44 (0) 118 984 0611 > > Visit our website at: www.autoscribe.co.uk > > Registered in Wales No: 1539748 > > **********************************************************DISCLAIMER*** > ************************************************** > > The contents of this email are confidential and are intended solely for > the use of the individual or > company to > whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error then > please accept our apology. If this is > the case > we would be obliged if you would contact the sender and then delete > this email. Opinions expressed in > this email > are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the > opinions of Autoscribe Ltd. Although > this email > and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus no > responsibility is accepted by Autoscribe Ltd > for any > loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email > or attachments. > *********************************************************************** > ********************************************************** > > From: Walden H. Leverich [mailto:wald...@techsoftinc.com] > Sent: 06 April 2009 15:16 > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: When will the next version be released? > > I forget, is the "official" release strongly named? And if so, did > those other components reference it by > strong name? I tend to hate strong naming! It's a logging component, if > there's an upgrade I should be > able to use it, why should I be tied to an older version just because > you built against the older > version? > > -Walden > > -- > Walden H Leverich III > Tech Software > (516) 627-3800 x3051 > wald...@techsoftinc.com > http://www.TechSoftInc.com > > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > From: Peter Drier [mailto:peter.dr...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 2:24 PM > To: Log4NET User > Subject: Re: When will the next version be released? > > So the last time log4net upgraded from .9 to .10, that process was > actually somewhat painful for me.. as > you note a lot of components rely on log4net .10.. And dealing with > different versions of log4net > simultaneously wasn't fun (we weren't allowed to gac it for various > reasons, nor do you want 2 copies of > log4net loaded into a single process anyways). > > Now, given that most to all of the updates/bug fixes are in the > appenders, it may make sense to split > log4net into 2 packages.. one that's the core log4net bits + appender > skeleton + interfaces.. and one > that's the bundled appenders.. > > That way, the third party packages (nunit, nhibernate, ...) can depend > on the core log4net bits without > having to upgrade every time Nicko does a appender bug fix.. > > This may even be enough to warrant a 1.3 ? > > Nicko? > > -Peter > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Yaojian <sky...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am totally agree with the reliable of log4net. > > I just want a bug-fix version, espically the UdpAppender issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-112 > > As lots of third-party components (for example, NHibernate) rely on > log4net's public GA 1.2.10, I have to > rebuild all these third-party components with my private build from the > log4net svn :-( > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Peter Drier <peter.dr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Maybe when someone comes up with a legit feature need that it doesn't > already cover? > > Seriously though, I've been using 1.2.10 for years now and log4net has > been the most reliable 3rd party > package I've used across many applications. The only things I've needed > that it couldn't do fit easily in > the appender and plugin frameworks. > > Don't fix what isn't broken! > > Peter > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Yaojian <sky...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > anyone know that? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.38/2037 - Release Date: 04/06/09 06:22:00
