Where I work we still have some .NET 2.0 projects, but there are a few reasons you could safely get rid of 2.0 support:
2.0 users can still use whatever the last existing good 2.0 version is. Make a branch and let others run with it if they want to keep the 2.0 compatibility. You can also make a test project .NET 3.5 while your code tested is 2.0 - I've done that on a few projects. On Mar 12, 6:50 am, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: > The email below is an email I sent Oren after reviewing a patch which > would add the AAA extension methods to anyone using C# 2.0. As > everyone is well aware C# 2.0 did not have extension methods, so this > patch exposes the extensions methods simply as static methods. This > particular patch aside, I have a broader questions about what > versions Rhino should support etc. Enough setup, here is the email: > > Oren, > > Been getting into the Rhino source and trying to get familiar with the > bits on a deeper level than before. Currently I'm taking the patch > supplied several weeks ago and going through trying to get some of the > extensions with c# 2.0. > > Am wanting to have a discussion with you and the other devs about > where Rhino is going and what our support for 2.0 should be. I would > recommend that we remove the Visual Studio 2005 project and all > support for it (my understanding is that Castle has done this as > well). It does not currently compile on the trunk (has references to > CPP interfaces, a missing file). Further, as new work is being added, > a lot of the items being added are not 2.0 compatible. Two quick > examples: > > * MockRepository ctor has ProxyGenerationOptions created with > object initializer (added in revision 2069) > * MockRepository.Stub() uses lambda syntax (added in revision > 2066) > > If we get the 2005 solution working (which I had a version of) we have > to be very careful about what and how it is added to the project. It > would seem to me to muddy the solution files with many conditional > compilation statements (a 2.0 safe version and a 3.0 safe version). > With C# 4.0 on the horizon if this strategy were adopted I could see > more complex conditional compilation going on in order to make the > various compilers happy. > > If the extension methods were added to work with C# 2.0 the code would > look ugly: > > IDemo mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IDemo>(); > RhinoMockExtensions.Expect(mock, Action<T> action); > > Everything in terms of readability that extension methods and the AAA > syntax give you seem to be lost. > > Am curious what you're thoughts are and the thoughts of others...I > don't want to overstep my bounds here as the new guy but I see some > potential red flags about going down the road of trying to get the > extensions methods working with various framework versions. However I > have not typically had to deal with releasing a product for multiple > versions to such a wide audience so I'm using this as an opportunity > to learn/grow. > > Tim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
