Hi Evan, I don't think think there's any particular reason that it is or isn't, but I suspect the way most people are doing unit testing doesn't really require the assembly to be strongly named. What I do (and I think this is pretty typical) is have a separate unit testing project, which has a reference to both the project I'm trying to test, and to the MbUnit DLL. Typically the unit test project and the project I'm testing are in the same solution. Since the unit testing project is basically just run on development and build machines, there's no particular reason to give it a strong name.
Hope this helps, Marc Evan wrote: > Hi, I was wondering why MbUnit is not strong named? My issue is that > I'd like to use MbUnit from a DLL which itself is strongly named, and > as per .NET protocol, it won't even build because the MbUnit assembly > reference uses a friendly name. I used subversion to get the source > code, but it is a bit daunting. Is there a way to get a strongly named > version of MbUnit? > > Thank you, > Evan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MbUnit.User" 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/MbUnitUser -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
