I certainly like it… and just plain
assembly:// would be a synonym for assembly:implicit// … but I’m
not 100% sure if the frameworks Uri class will handle it, I’ll give it a
squiz… if it does then that would be great – it’s an issue we’re
currently tackling with my own project’s links to resources as well.
Chez,
- Alex
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Neuwirt
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2006 1:06
a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Castle-users]
assembly includes
I used to do a lot of CORBA in the old days and they had some very
interesting URI. How about something like
assembly:implicit/companyname.productname.core/myfile or
assembly:explicit/companyname.productname.core/companyname.productname.DefaultConfig.myfile
The first part is the assembly name
The former would prepend the assembly name to the myfile to get the
absolute resource name
The latter would use the second part as the absolute resource name.
On 5/31/06, hammett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like
assembly://companyname.productname.core/companyname/productname/core/myfile.
config
It's a breaking change, though. I'd try to implement it to be backward
compatible. So, can you create a jira issue?
Thanks
On 5/28/06, Alex Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> What about insisting on an absolute path?
>
> So for the vs.net assemblies you would be
forced to do:
>
>
assembly://companyname.productname.core/companyname/productname/core/myfile.
> config
>
> or
>
> assembly://companyname.productname.core/companyname.productname.core/myfile.
> config
>
> (Either should work considering the path separators get transformed to
> periods anyway... probably the second one is easier for someone to
stomach)
>
> I guess we could have a relative path indicator too, but I suspect it's
> probably just confusing, considering the differences between Nant & vs.net
> built assemblies.
>
> assembly://companyname.productname.core/~/myfile.config ... or
> assembly://companyname.productname.core/./myfile.config ??
>
> Chez,
>
> - Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of
> > hammett
> > Sent: Monday, 29 May 2006 10:14 a.m.
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Castle-users] assembly includes
> >
> > IMHO, there are more issues involved here.
> >
> > You can have
> > Assembly companyname.productname.core
> > Namespace companyname.productname.core
> > Resource #1 companyname.productname.core.myfile.config
> > Resource #2 companyname.productname.myfile.config
> > Resource #3 myfile.config
> >
> > VS.Net uses the namespace, but nant doesn't (unless you tell it to do
it)
> >
> > So we can think about how to express it using the uri format.
> >
> >
> > On 5/28/06, Alex Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > I've noticed in a couple of cases I run into problems using
assembly://
> > > style configuration includes when the assembly name and default
> > namespace
> > > are not aligned, ie. I might have an assembly called
> > > "companyname.productname.core ", but the default
namespace is
> > > "companyname.productname" - obviously not great
practice in most cases,
> > but
> > > not uncommon in the wild.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > hammett
> > http://www.castleproject.org/~hammett
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CastleProject-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/castleproject-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CastleProject-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/castleproject-users
>
--
Cheers,
hammett
http://www.castleproject.org/~hammett
_______________________________________________
CastleProject-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/castleproject-users
|
_______________________________________________
CastleProject-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/castleproject-users
