> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx
Yes, this is the trick some obfuscators use.(they use also some scrambling fxns to hide the code in resource) DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:36 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts @Digy, that could be done post build with ILMerge or build an additional uber assembly that stores other assemblies as a resource. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx We can add the above to the build process if that would interest people. To some nuget is just another disruption and to others its a godsend. Some might say only hipsters would use nuget, others might say the cools kids with iphones use nuget. (or android or wp7). At the end of the day nuget or combining assemblies are just channels/ways we can make it easier for various developers to consume & get their hands on Lucene.Net. If anyone else has ideas along those lines and it can be automated, post it in this thread. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users could > reference all contribs with a single assembly. > I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :) > > DIGY > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts > > While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual > package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)" > package that drags them all down. > > That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want > to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> wrote: > > I'm going to vote +1 for granular. > > > > With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on > there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. > > > > Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build > server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the > maintainers: > http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html > > > > Aaron Powell > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | > Github | BitBucket > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts > > > > > >> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question > >> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a > >> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. > >> > > > > > > +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. > > > > > >> > >> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an > >> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new > >> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected > release? > > > > > > Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea > > > ----- > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11 > > ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
