Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsFree MagazinesWhite PapersSubmit Content
Discussion GroupsASP.NETWindows FormsLanguages.NET FrameworkVisual Studio.NET
Articles.NET FrameworkASP.NETToolsWindows Forms
.NET DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Visual Basic 6SQL ServerMS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...

.NET Forum / .NET Framework / CLR / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

make Internal access more logical and less physical

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mountain - 23 May 2006 01:02 GMT
If a large framework (or library, application, etc.) has optional parts
and some users may not want all parts, it would make sense to break the
framework into separate physical assemblies. However, if internal
access is specified in the monolithic framework, a problem arises
because changing internal access to public changes the design
intention. Something other than public is required, yet internal
doesn't work anymore (even though the logical design of the code has
not changed).

The large framework is still logically one unit, but it has been
physically arranged as two or more assemblies strictly for efficiency
or flexibility. Why should we not have a way to define an internal
access level for the _logical_ unit? In an imaginary future version of
C#, this might be something like the internal access modifier scoped by
namespace. . .

Is there any way to accomplish what I'm after in C# 2.0? Thanks.
Barry Kelly - 23 May 2006 01:17 GMT
> Why should we not have a way to define an internal
> access level for the _logical_ unit? In an imaginary future version of
> C#, this might be something like the internal access modifier scoped by
> namespace. . .
>
> Is there any way to accomplish what I'm after in C# 2.0? Thanks.

There is. Look up friend assemblies in the MSDN documentation.

-- Barry

Signature

http://barrkel.blogspot.com/

Jon Shemitz - 23 May 2006 03:08 GMT

> If a large framework (or library, application, etc.) has optional parts
> and some users may not want all parts, it would make sense to break the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Is there any way to accomplish what I'm after in C# 2.0? Thanks.

Yes. There's even a way to accomplish it in 1.0.

While most assemblies are a single PE file, this is not a requirement:
You can break your assembly into multiple modules, united by a
manifest. Internal visibility applies across the whole assembly, but
you can have different contents in different builds.

Signature

.NET 2.0 for Delphi Programmers   <http://www.midnightbeach.com/.net>

                                Delphi skills make .NET easy to learn
                                  Being printed - in stores by June


Rate this thread:







Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.