logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dominik Psenner" <dpsen...@gmail.com>
Subject AW: Changed some defines
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:07:50 GMT
>> Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe
>> FRAMEWORK_X_Y should read as "FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE" since
>every framework
>> is compatible to its ancestors.
>fine with me, I'll make the adjustments.


>> Still I would keep these defines:
>> * MONO := set when build for Mono
>> * MONO_X_Y := set when built for Mono
>> * DOTNET := set when built for the .NET framework
>What you call DOTNET currently is NET, but that will be easy to change.
>In addition we still have NETCF for Compact Framework.
>My hope is we don't need MONO_X_Y but only MONO and the matching
>FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE.  We'll see once we try to target Mono 3.5 and
>4.0 as well but I'd rather reduce the repetition all our different build
>targets cause in the build files, first.

So we assume an implicit DOTNET as long as there is no MONO, right?

>> building for a newer .NET framework should define all other frameworks
>> since every future framework will be compatible to all ancestors. For
>> example while building for .NET 4.0 the following defines should be
>> set:
>Agreed in general, but given FRAMEWORK_2_0_OR_ABOVE is our baseline I'd
>assume it implicitly for all builds (that are not NETCF).  Also
>FRAMEWORK_3_0_OR_ABOVE wouldn't be used for anything and I don't
>us to use it.  Let's introduce it once we need it.

Agreed, let's keep things as small and simple as possible.

>> Despite all this, I'm not sure if we need something like
>> FRAMEWORK_X_Y_ONLY.  This would need further evaluation based on the
>> current codebase.
>There is no such case right now.  We really only have a single place
>where 3.5 is checked and it is enabled for 4.0 as well.
>If we ever need it, we can simulate it with something like


View raw message