Instead a stand-alone DynProxy, the DynProxy was included in Castle.Core so, from now on we will follow directly the release of Castle.Core.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Johannes Gustafsson <[email protected]>wrote: > Ok, that's great to know. Thanks. > > /Johannes > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No thanks. >> We are enough in touch with Castle prj. >> The BytecodeProvider is in a different assembly for some reason. >> As you can see, we are already using the last released DynamicProxy >> 2.2.0.6628. >> In the Castle's Download page I can't see anything new. >> >> When/if there will be something new we will update our library; if it >> happen after our GA you can compile the Castle.Bytecode by yourself and/or, >> where really needed, we can release a new NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle >> >> AFIK, Krysztof is planning a new stand-alone DynamicProxy assembly. >> >> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Johannes Gustafsson <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Have you considered upgrading NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle to use Castle >>> 2.5 before releasing NH3.0? >>> >>> Castle.Core version 2.5 is now in beta and seems to be released pretty >>> soon. One thing that is new is that DynamicProxy is now merged into >>> Castle.Core and is no longer a separate assembly. Therefore it requires >>> changes in the project to not use the castle.dynamicproxy2.dll anymore. I >>> dont know if the new version contains any features that are of use for NH >>> but if I was using castle in my codebase and wanted to upgrade to 2.5 then I >>> would have to have to patch NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle and compile my own >>> version of it. >>> >>> I can think of 2 solutions: >>> >>> 1. Have 2 versions of NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle. One compiled with 2.1 >>> and one compiled with 2.5. The user would then pick the one they want. >>> 2. ILMerge Castle into NHibernate.ByteCode.Castle and internalize it. >>> That way it won't conflict with other Castle libs used in the users >>> codebase. >>> >>> I can probably create a patch for it, I just wanted to see if anyone else >>> has thought about this and what the "right" way would be. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Johannes >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
