The thread occurred on 7/9/08 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Should this be highlighted in the download area at all? That is, to > highlight the latest version that works with your version of c#. > > Tim > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:16 AM, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
