Hey, I took a quick look at System.Web over the weekend, and I am not sure that it is that bad.
Most of the native stuff has to do with performance counters and some authentication stuff on Windows (which we can skip/ignore). But the core of System.Web should be relatively easy to move. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Marek Habersack <gren...@twistedcode.net> wrote: > On 19/11/14 20:50, Martin Thwaites wrote: > > Hey Martin, > > Hi Miguel, >> >> That sounds good. >> >> In terms of System.Web then, would you prefer your internal team does it? >> or am I ok to start replacing some files when >> the sub-module is added? I was thinking of trying to hit the >> HttpApplication class first and work my way out from there. >> > Please be especially careful with System.Web - there are plenty of mines > buried there. Both in our and in Microsoft code. The latter codebase uses a > lot of native Win32 methods which may not have portable (POSIX, preferably) > counterparts. Our code, OTOH, has a lot of cruft from the 1.1 days. The > biggest problem with our code, however, is its reliance on an early (wrong) > assumption that ASP.NET pages are, in fact, valid HTML. The parser is > such a convoluted piece of misery that touching it in a wrong way causes > System.Web to fall apart. If you want to start contributing I'd start there > since there are issues we cannot fix using the current parser (especially > the conditional parsing part). I dare say that System.Web will be one of > the most challenging parts to port. Good luck and if you need any reviews > and/or help don't hesitate to contact me. > > marek > > >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >> On 19 November 2014 19:41, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com <mailto: >> mig...@xamarin.com>> wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> I do not think we would be moving the code. We would do two things: >> >> * Make changes to the fork in mono/referencesoure >> * Reference the new files from mono/external/referencesource >> >> Miguel >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Martin Thwaites < >> monofo...@my2cents.co.uk <mailto:monofo...@my2cents.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> HI Miguel, >> >> Thanks, exactly what I've been waiting for! I only really have 1 >> question. >> >> In the ways that we are going to port things, you mention pulling >> in the entire assembly. How exactly would you >> be thinking this would work? try building and fixing anything >> that it depends from other libraries in the other >> libraries? or are you going to fork the reference source, >> submodule it, reference all the files in the .sources >> files within mono, then fix (i.e. add #ifdefs etc.) to the fork? >> >> Essentially, are you thinking that there will be an assembly that >> can simply be copied without changes in the >> above circumstance? >> >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >> On 19 November 2014 17:48, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com >> <mailto:mig...@xamarin.com>> wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> As promised, the plans: >> >> http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/dotnet- >> integration/ >> >> If you start work on something, please notify the list, and >> update the Trello board: >> >> https://trello.com/b/vRPTMfdz/net-framework-integration- >> into-mono >> >> Miguel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mono-list maillist - mono-l...@lists.ximian.com <mailto: >> mono-l...@lists.ximian.com> >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mono-devel-list mailing list >> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list