This project is read-only.

Release build suggestions

Topics: Developer Forum
Mar 20, 2008 at 12:12 AM
As I was going through the source code of the 2.0 release, I noticed couple of things that would improve usability and “professionalism” of the released binaries (IMHO) –

  • Strong name – if ScintillaNet.dll was a strongly named (signed) assembly, it could be referenced directly from either signed or unsigned assemblies (projects). Currently, to use ScintillaNET in a project that is signing its assemblies you either have to use ILMerge to sign the released binary or generate your own key, tweak the project and compile custom DLL. (Keep in mind that Microsoft’s .NET Framework Guidelines recommend using strong name for assemblies).
  • XML documentation files – those files are used by Visual Studio’s intellisense to provide contextual help when writing code. Even though most classes/methods in ScintillaNET don’t have comments yet, why not generate help for what is available and keep expanding?
  • MSBuild project file – I am a big fan of automation as well as MSBuild :-). Having a “master” project file for ScintillaNET that builds, packages and even possibly publishes a release might be quite helpful. This would also mean that people don’t have to have Visual Studio installed to be able to compile ScintillaNET (MSBuild comes installed as part of .NET itself).

Would you agree that it would be nice to have the above?

PS: If needed, I am willing to implement all three of the above features for the project. However, I don’t really know how to participate, who reviews contributions etc. so I would need to be enlightened by the more seasoned team members :-).
Jul 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I agree on all 3. I wish I would have seen this earlier. If you are still interested drop me a message via the my profile contact me thingy.