Re: Forcing an application to load assemblies from a specific path

I was not aware that the term "breaking change" had such specific semantics
that you were not allowed to use it in reference to an application that
ceases to function when a new build of an assembly is introduced. I'm sorry.
I won't do it again. From now on, I will refer to this as "disruptive
alteration" instead.

Do you know if Microsoft has published a list of "disruptive alterations" in
Windows 7 yet? ;-)

- Fernando

P.S. I'm very intrigued why everyone is so upset about my use of the term
"breaking change" to describe something that *breaks* as a result of a
*change* in the framework. Is it because the application deserved to be
broken? No need to answer this. I'm just "reflecting" to myself.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Per Bolmstedt" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Forcing an application to load assemblies
from a specific path


Fernando Tubio <[email protected]> wrote:

> If Windows 7 ships with the framework and they call this .NET
> 3.5 SP1, and the application breaks, then it is a breaking change.

Well, since you are alone so far in your definition of the term "breaking
change"; what changes would you consider to be *non-breaking* in the BCL
without changing the assembly version?

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives