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

LOL.....  I was not upset about the phrase "breaking change".  I was just
trying to be helpful and point out that, from a contractual standpoint,
which is really what should matter most, this is not a "breaking change".

I had no idea a religious war would ensue.  :-)

Thanks,

	-Trey

---------------------------------------
Trey Nash

Check out my book "Accelerated C# 2008"
http://www.amazon.com/Accelerated-C-2008-Trey-Nash/dp/1590598733




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fernando Tubio
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] 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

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