Hi,
In Spring.NET, I've had user requests to sign the debug build which I didn't
do for a long time in the project history. Also, the release build is done
using /DEBUG:pdbonly flag.
Cheers,
Mark
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Discuss%3A-strong-naming-of-NMS-assemblie
Why can't you just provide both? I've never really seen why this is such a
big issue. If you provide both strong named and non-strong named
assemblies, then you make both crowds happy.
Bryan
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Mark Pollack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In order to put as
Hi,
In order to put assemblies into the GAC, the assembly needs to be strongly
signed. Many users use this as a deployment mechanism for dependent
libraries. I personally haven't found any issue in maintaining/creating
strongly signed assemblies for the Spring.NET project so I'd like to
underst
I guess there aren't any strong feelings one way or the other on this topic.
That makes the decision easy then. I have logged JIRA AMQNET-115 to
address this issue.
- Jim
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jim Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to get people's feedback on strong namin
I would like to get people's feedback on strong naming of the NMS
assemblies. I am working on releasing NMS 1.0, and this is now a
priority issue. I would like to hear some arguments for having strong
named assemblies, other than "Microsoft recommends it."
I think strong naming these assemblies
