On 2011-08-16, Roy Chastain wrote:
> A starting point for the questions to be presented. Please modify and
> add as you see fit. These are in no particular order.
Looks good to me.
> 6) - Do you need an assembly targeting any version of Silverlight? (if
> enough say yes, we come back and ask
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
> Let me start at some basics just to ensure that we are starting at the
> same point.
> There are 3 CLR versions, 1.x, 2.0, 4.0. Framework 3.0 and 3.5 are
> simply add on assemblies that target the 2.0 runtime. This fact is why
> the 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 interop w
A starting point for the questions to be presented. Please modify and
add as you see fit. These are in no particular order.
1) - Do you need an assembly targeting the 1.0 and/or 1.1 framework?
2) - Please prioritize the following
Producing an assembly targeting the 3.5 client profile
How to do configuration in assembly.cs file for log4net implementation?
---
Key: LOG4NET-303
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-303
Project: Log4net
Issue Ty
>> I think csc is smart enough to drop references that aren't actually
used.
Apparently not. Below is text from the announcement of the 3.5 client
profile at
http://blogs.windowsclient.net/trickster92/archive/2008/05/21/introducin
g-the-net-framework-client-profile.aspx. I draw you attention to
Sorry, I probably did not express my points well.
Let me start at some basics just to ensure that we are starting at the
same point.
There are 3 CLR versions, 1.x, 2.0, 4.0. Framework 3.0 and 3.5 are
simply add on assemblies that target the 2.0 runtime. This fact is why
the 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 inte
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-233?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13085159#comment-13085159
]
Markus Ewald commented on LOG4NET-233:
--
I have added a patch with the changes I've b
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-233?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Markus Ewald updated LOG4NET-233:
-
Attachment: log4net-1.2.10-net-4.0.patch
Patch that adds .NET 4.0 Client Profile compatibility t
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> If we get back on track with regular releases the occasional trunk
>> breakage will be OK as people won't be forced to use arbitrary trunk
>> revisions.
> No, it is not OK at all. IMHO every recorded history
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-108?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13085066#comment-13085066
]
Curt Arnold commented on LOG4NET-108:
-
The patch file did not apply cleanly for me, p
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
>>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
> Two comments
> 1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the
> Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list,
> I believe that many of them d
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
> A couple of issues
> 1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version with
> a client profile.
> 2) - There is more to building against client profiles than removing
> namespaces.
I understand both of those points.
Let's assume we target 2.0
A couple of issues
1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version with
a client profile.
2) - There is more to building against client profiles than removing
namespaces. The references must be changed to remove the Framework DLLs
that are not part of the client profile. Again,
>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
Two comments
1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the
Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list,
I believe that many of them do not realize that a 4.0 framework app can
ca
On 08/15/2011 11:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> If we get back on track with regular releases the occasional trunk
> breakage will be OK as people won't be forced to use arbitrary trunk
> revisions.
No, it is not OK at all. IMHO every recorded history should be a
monolithic working library. Only i
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the
>> 2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a
>> stripped down 2.0 version or explicitly target 3.5 (client profil
On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the
> 2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a
> stripped down 2.0 version or explicitly target 3.5 (client profile).
> But I may very well be missing some nu
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 07:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I think it is important for us all, that we do have a single place with
>> the code to discuss - and once we have enough people with write access
>> it won't be necessary to think about any other place than sv
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting
>> different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be
>> straight forward to extend that to the client profile as well.
On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting
> different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be
> straight forward to extend that to the client profile as well.
>
> Tasos' patch basically works the same w
On 08/15/2011 07:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I think it is important for us all, that we do have a single place with
> the code to discuss - and once we have enough people with write access
> it won't be necessary to think about any other place than svn for this.
>
> The "hg or git clone of svn
Hi all,
it seems that so far we agree that the very next steps should be
* release 1.2.11 ASAP.
This should be current trunk plus all known good patches from JIRA that
won't make it impossible to build for 1.0 or compact framework.
I think it may be possible to provide client profile vers
22 matches
Mail list logo
