While we separate the library we require everyone – not just the mobiles – to add a new reference, adapt deployments, etc. Whereas the mobile people could update their requirements by targeting their application to .NET 4.5. So the question is: do we really want to break backwards compatibility to help fresh ASP.NET applications that could also retarget to the .NET framework 4.5? Talking for myself this is not as sensible as it may seems like at first glance.
Von: Miljenko Cvjetko [mailto:mcvje...@holisticware.net] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2014 10:03 An: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Betreff: Re: Thoughts on 1.3 Hi Gert On 2014.02.05 22:14, gert.drie...@telenet.be <mailto:gert.drie...@telenet.be> wrote: Hey Miljenko, I don't think it makes sense to create a separate "client-profile" version. MS has already abandoned this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912(v=vs.110).aspx I'm aware of that. Maybe the term "client-profile" was unfortunate. Let's call it "System.Web.dll-less" or "ASP.net-less". I'm aware that log4net origins are more on the server side and that eventually came down to desktops and this journey continues toward mobile right now. This is the problem of most libraries and no one is to be blamed. It is simply how technologies came in and mobile came as last. Ideal would be to write mobile first, but this cannot be done. Perhaps you were referring to a portable class library ? No. I did not "Separating "client-profile"" means just trimming down the parts not needed on desktop and mobile. Steps I suggested: 1. extracting ASP.net (System.Web.dll) dependencies for all clients 2. extracting System.Configuration.dll for mobile I didn't do that in first version 2013-10, but would like to do in next run For more info read JonP's part of this discussion: <http://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/3300/rationale-behind-removal-of-system-diagnostics-trace-in-xa-and-xi#latest> http://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/3300/rationale-behind-removal-of-system-diagnostics-trace-in-xa-and-xi#latest 3. this leaves "common" stuff today I would put it into PCL, but 3-6 months PCLs were not ideal (more problems than benefits) I usually created dll/assembly per platform and source was linked from one of those into other. Cheers, Gert Best regards Mel
