activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bryan Murphy" <>
Subject Re: Discuss: strong naming of NMS assemblies
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:42:52 GMT
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.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Mark Pollack <
> wrote:

> 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
> understand better what is preventing this.   I can help out in this regard
> if needed.  As NMS will likely be used as a dependency in other projects,
> not providing a strongly signed assembly would restrict these other
> projects
> from providing a strongly signed version of their own software.
> Cheers,
> Mark
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message