On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote:
> I just found this statement
> "In Express Editions of Visual Studio, a .NET Framework version or
> profile cannot be specified when a project is created. However, you can
> later retarget the project to any installed .NET Framework version."
> At http://msdn.mi
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
> Let me start at some basics just to ensure that we are starting at the
> same point.
> There are 3 CLR versions, 1.x, 2.0, 4.0. Framework 3.0 and 3.5 are
> simply add on assemblies that target the 2.0 runtime. This fact is why
> the 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 interop w
5, 2011 08:57
To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Client Profiles
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
> A couple of issues
> 1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version
> with a client profile.
> 2) - There is more to building against client profiles
age-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 09:00
To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Client Profiles
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
>>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
> Two comments
> 1) -
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
>>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
> Two comments
> 1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the
> Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list,
> I believe that many of them d
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
> A couple of issues
> 1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version with
> a client profile.
> 2) - There is more to building against client profiles than removing
> namespaces.
I understand both of those points.
Let's assume we target 2.0
uilds.
--
Roy Chastain
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 06:15
To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Client Profiles
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner
>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
Two comments
1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the
Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list,
I believe that many of them do not realize that a 4.0 framework app can
ca
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the
>> 2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a
>> stripped down 2.0 version or explicitly target 3.5 (client profil
On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the
> 2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a
> stripped down 2.0 version or explicitly target 3.5 (client profile).
> But I may very well be missing some nu
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting
>> different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be
>> straight forward to extend that to the client profile as well.
On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting
> different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be
> straight forward to extend that to the client profile as well.
>
> Tasos' patch basically works the same w
12 matches
Mail list logo
