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

Fernando,

Perhaps you can explain which "disruptive alterations" should be considered
"breaking changes"?

What if my code depends on the # of bytes of IL in System.Xml? is ithis a
disruptive alteration?
What if my code takes a dependency on internal state of a framework object
is this a disruptive alteration?
What if my code calls private methods of an object in the framework is this
a disruptive alternation?
What if my code takes a dependency on the number of types in an assembly is
this a disruptive alteration?
What if my code depends on floating points always being truncated to 64bits
as opposed to being left in registers at 80 bits? Many found the problem to
this one at 2.0
What if my code depended on explicit interfaces being broken?
http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung/archive/2006/09/02/Interface-Re_2D00_Implementation-bug-in-2.0-runtime.aspx

OK maybe that last one really is a breaking change but it agrees with the
spec so who wins?

I can play this game all day. You can't call these things breaking changes
because your definition of broken is well broken.



On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Fernando Tubio <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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" <discuss.develop.com@
> UL7.INFO>
> 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
>



-- 
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it.

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