I'd say merge 'em. I don't know of anyone who uses Services.Transaction without ATM. I could be in an isolated world, though...
Having everything transaction related in one assembly also helps simplify things; I know when I introduced the ATM to certain developers they would add a reference to one assembly and forget about the other, then get confused when things weren't compiling or working properly. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henrik Feldt Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Castle.Services.Transaction + Castle.Windsor? Hello everyone, I'm considering merging the code of Castle.Services.Transaction with Castle.Facilities.AutomaticTransactionManagement/AutoTX. This would introduce a dependency on Castle.Windsor for Castle.Services.Transaction. (Another way of saying it is that the IoC-container would be required for using the transactions project, which it is not now. However, it could simplify versioning/dll-management slightly). As of now it is merely a thought: please tell me what your opinions are on whether to merge them or not! Kind regards, Henrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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/castle-project-users?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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/castle-project-users?hl=en.
