mirror of
https://github.com/xoofx/markdig.git
synced 2026-02-03 21:36:36 +00:00
Strong name? #14
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @cyotek on GitHub (Jun 19, 2016).
Hello,
I was looking at using Markdig as a replacement for CommonMark in one project and MarkdownDeep in another, however Markdig isn't strongly named. Does you have any plans on strong naming the Markdig library (or perhaps offer two packages, one signed, one unsigned (the way YamlDotNet does it), which will satisfy both stubborn-as-mules camps)?
Thanks;
Richard Moss
@jeremydmiller commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2016):
You can always use Strongnamer: https://github.com/dsplaisted/strongnamer
@xoofx commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2016):
Oh, nice this strongnamer, thanks @jeremydmiller (and @dsplaisted!)
@cyotek If you can live with strongnamer that would be great... I dislike strong naming specially for a library that provides a plugin API, as you have either to deal with assembly redirect or to "trick" your assembly/file version that will be different to the NuGet version to avoid assembly redirect binding (which is typically not great for minor versions, as you would still want your clients to work in the same way, without having to recompile anything)
@cyotek commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2016):
Thanks for the replies. I tried that strongnamer and can confirm it worked (at least as far as the example goes) but it's not a solution I'd like to use. At the same time I understand the reluctance of some library maintainers to add strong names (and I'm just as stubborn about using them it seems :))
@synhershko commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016):
From a library author to another, please don't go the route of strong naming. I'd rather we strong arm the community.
@dotnetchris commented on GitHub (Jul 15, 2016):
👎 for strong naming the project
@tynorton commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2016):
Would be convenient for those of us with strong name requirements if there were 2 NuGet packages available.
MarkDig, andMarkDig.Signed. Should satisfy everyone, no?@dsplaisted commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2016):
This causes problems if there are other NuGet packages that depend on MarkDig. Each of those NuGet packages would have to also publish a signed and nonsigned version, or else the version of MarkDig that you want to use might not work with packages that depend on it.
@gsaralms commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2017):
Would be convenient for those of us with strong name requirements if there were 2 NuGet packages available. MarkDig, and MarkDig.Signed. Should satisfy everyone, no?
This is a really great idea, we also want to use MarkDig but are currently blocked only because this is not signed
@xoofx commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2017):
@gsaralms Yes, I will add a Markdig.Signed nuget package.
@gsaralms commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2017):
@xoofx : thanks a lot, it will help us a lot
@xoofx commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2017):
So the NuGet package Markdig.Signed should now provide signed assemblies.
@mdahamiwal commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2017):
Thanks a ton @xoofx :)