logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Changed some defines
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:43:27 GMT
On 2013-11-04, Dominik Psenner wrote:

> Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe every
> 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.

> 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 expect
us to use it.  Let's introduce it once we need it.

> 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