Why can't you just provide both? I've never really seen why this is such a big issue. If you provide both strong named and non-strong named assemblies, then you make both crowds happy. Bryan
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Mark Pollack <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Hi, > > In order to put assemblies into the GAC, the assembly needs to be strongly > signed. Many users use this as a deployment mechanism for dependent > libraries. I personally haven't found any issue in maintaining/creating > strongly signed assemblies for the Spring.NET project so I'd like to > understand better what is preventing this. I can help out in this regard > if needed. As NMS will likely be used as a dependency in other projects, > not providing a strongly signed assembly would restrict these other > projects > from providing a strongly signed version of their own software. > > Cheers, > Mark > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Discuss%3A-strong-naming-of-NMS-assemblies-tp19338623p19500805.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
