I am changing the version number, and thus creating a new assembly
side-by-side each time. That's exactly the problem. Now when I fix a
bug in this new assembly version, it doesn't fix the same bug in old
assembly versions.
Take the following example of assembly release sequences:
Release Version 1.0.0.0 - Contains a bug that causes a bad performance
hit that I am not currently aware of. One application uses this
assembly.
Release Version 1.1.0.0 - Change some method signatures. One new
application uses this assembly, using the new method signatures.
Release Version 2.0.0.0 - Fixes the newly found bug that increases
performance by 500%
The applications that are using the first two assemblies do not benefit
from this bug fix. If I want to make the application using 1.1.0.0 use
the bug fix, I now need to recompile it to use 2.0.0.0 and redeploy it.
To make the application using 1.0.0.0 benefit from the fix, I need to
roll back my source so that the method signatures are the same that the
application is using, add the same code into my source, recompile, and
redeploy, or rewrite the application that is using 1.0.0.0 to use
2.0.0.0, recompile, and redeploy. I've just done all the work I was
trying to avoid by using shared assemblies! Right?
Is this making sense?
> Hello, jnoody@gmail.com!
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> With best regards, Vadym Stetsyak.
> Blog: http://vadmyst.blogspot.com
jnoody@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 15:47 GMT
It seems that nobody is reading this thread anymore, but just in case
someone finds this in a search down the road, I found the following
article describes my dilemma in the Custom Version Policy section quite
well. The next page in the tutorial seems to be blank, so you have to
skip a page to find an explanation and then another page for examples.
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=dotnet&seqNum=363&rl=1
> I am changing the version number, and thus creating a new assembly
> side-by-side each time. That's exactly the problem. Now when I fix a
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> > With best regards, Vadym Stetsyak.
> > Blog: http://vadmyst.blogspot.com