Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22701 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2008 20:12:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2008 20:12:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 77223 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2008 20:12:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 77200 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2008 20:12:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 77182 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2008 20:12:46 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:12:46 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of e.semog@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.242 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.198.242] (HELO rv-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.198.242) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:11:48 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so493534rvb.26 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:12:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=gQHk9KzHCLgQapTM+4xCJc6jgIYEGLwnXYyXpF+N60M=; b=cEBymLFQEu1DfrnG4uyGwGpXG1uQTQgiXsA3X8oY1PYd7KOLw7yJ3q8KrohC4e2zfm wK1GlN1oBNXMhFi9Bauby0E8NApXsGSG1/0z7gWK8PrSR3j+jm+byHX3e94MjxeBQpuT z2MYyKSTuLqtCrqxbWLvIeO/5ovGv905FmbZ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=xQlI2x7TiItQFpZ/OG4rBfCd13UqDXZwtW5y6FZA/bqs26YguoYLD4q92VDp5AS8Tv QnBUJtDcSaM+bbzPZ+qPkGtAKCl6sbggdwjT838P92iiR3/g2LnP6HQhMoVm0xjDgpB9 hb3bjzzpb9OyER6VtZ+y+NxD7F7Sc7FiCQ9Zc= Received: by 10.141.85.13 with SMTP id n13mr6867682rvl.250.1220645529950; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.163.16 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5a56ce1b0809051312h556e9669v8c1e724876263ebf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:12:09 -0700 From: "Jim Gomes" To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Discuss: strong naming of NMS assemblies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 causes more problems than any potential benefits. I would like to turn off the strong naming, and go with the standard weak naming. Thoughts/arguments for/against?