logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Hanselman" <Sc...@Corillian.com>
Subject RE: .NET 2.0 patches
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:08:04 GMT
Your thinking makes sense to me. +1


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rosenfeld [mailto:james.rosenfeld@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:31 AM
To: Log4NET Dev
Subject: Re: .NET 2.0 patches

Well, the source, as is, will compile/run under .NET 2.0 without issue
(as far as I can tell) - however, the compiler issues a number of
warnings about deprecated method calls and namespaces.

Currently, it seems conditional compilation is used liberally
throughout the source to support the various CLR platforms.  It seems
logical to implement .NET 2.0 support in the same fashion, though I am
open to any ideas...


On 11/14/05, Scott Hanselman <Scott@corillian.com> wrote:
> Interesting. Out of curisousity, what kinds of problems? Would not the
> goal be to target the least common denomenator (rather than #ifdefs)
> have a single binary work on .NET 1.1 and 2.0? What's log4net's goal
as far
> as the ratio of binaries to platforms?
> Scott Hanselman
> http://www.computerzen.com
> ________________________________
> From: Jim Rosenfeld [mailto:james.rosenfeld@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sun 11/13/2005 10:06 PM
> To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
> Subject: .NET 2.0 patches
> Greetings,
> I've been using log4net for a little while now and it's really a great
> to have in the toolbox.  Naturally, when I obtained my copy of Visual
> 2005, I wanted to see how log4net would compile in the release version
> the 2.0 framework.  I was able to compile it successfully, but with a
> of warnings for deprecated methods, etc.  So I went through all of the
> (non-XML doc) warnings and added conditional compilation statements
> (NET_2_0)) with fixes for the various issues the compiler reported.
> I probably should have looked into contributing more first and applied
> changes to the current svn version of the code, but at least I've run
> through the process once.  I did a quick search through the dev
mailing list
> archives and I didn't see anything related to an effort to update the
> for .NET 2.0 (besides a recent checkin for one 2.0 related warning),
so I
> wanted to see if anyone else already has this in the works somewhere,
and if
> not, if I should submit patches for the fixes (which, in the interim,
> probably start applying to the svn branch).
> James
> --
> James Rosenfeld
> james.rosenfeld@gmail.com
> iv.ix

View raw message