Im not sure this is really a problem. I just compiled an EXE on my .NET box using csc like this:
csc test.cs /r:system.xml.dll
Notice the lower-case reference.
The resulting EXE contained the string 'System.Xml' but did NOT contain the string 'system.xml' so apparently csc corrects the case for imports.
As long as the DLLs that mono ships are the same case as the MS ones then everything should just work fine.
Piers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaroslaw Kowalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: Juli Mallett; Simon Waite
> Cc: Mono List
> Subject: Re: [Mono-list] VFAT vs Unix filesystems...
>
>
> My 0.02 (again, sorry)
>
> Some posts ago I mentioned the problem with http:// which you
> cannot reliably solve on the client side (e.g by telling mono
> to try all possible combinations of upper- and lowercase
> letters forming assembly name - there's simply too many of
> them). When you're on your local FS, this may do, but not on
> the network (we all love download-on-demand, don't we?).
>
> I think that the best thing one can do is to ignore the
> problem and force application developers to write their code
> using correct case for dll names.
>
> Another (not so good, IMHO) idea is to add a system-defined
> lookup table (an alias file) that defines classes of
> abstraction, where spelling is likely to vary among programs, like:
>
> { System.Xml.dll, System.XML.dll, system.xml.dll }
> { Mono.Data.PostgreSqlClient.dll, Mono.Data.PostgresqlClient.dll }
>
> Third one (which I like least) is some machine-wide option to
> force some style of filename casing. Possible values could be:
>
> mono.data.postgresqlclient.dll - all lowercase
> Mono.Data.Postgresqlclient.dll - Pascal casing
> MONO.DATA.POSTGRESQLCLIENT.DLL - all uppercase (ouch!)
>
> I wouldn't go any further because it may introduce serious
> versioning or even security problems as mentioned by some of
> you. In other words. Assembly lookup should be as strict as possible.
>
> Jarek
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juli Mallett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Simon Waite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Mono List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mono-list] VFAT vs Unix filesystems...
>
>
> > * De: Simon Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data:
> 2003-01-08 ] [
> > Subjecte: Re: [Mono-list] VFAT vs Unix filesystems... ]
> > > I maintain the premise that dumbing down the DLL search
> method is a
> > > "Bad Idea"(tm) - depending on which strategy you use to lookup
> > > MyAssembly.dll.
> > >
> > > For instance a malicious user could insert MYASSEMBLY.DLL
> into the
> > > search path, and override the assembly the app is taking.
> - Possibly
> > > with disasterous concequences.
> >
> > If your search path is vulnerable in this way, there are
> most likely
> > other things they can do, and if not then there may be at
> some point.
> >
> > The security concerns for data files are the only ones
> vaguely real,
> > since using /tmp for this sort of thing may be valid.
> >
> > juli.
> > --
> > Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet.
> > OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer.
> > ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict.
> > FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
