nunit-dev team mailing list archive

["Charlie Poole" <charlie@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that's how Andreas did it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie Cansdale [mailto:jcansdale@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: Charlie Poole
> Cc: nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Nunit-dev] Framework in GAC
> 
> > Let's leave the option in Andreas' install program and 
> experiment with 
> > it as needed rather than trying to decide on an a priori 
> basis. Does 
> > that make sense?
> >
> Yes, that makes sense. Can we make it so that people have to 
> explicitly select it in the install? Because it may have 
> unintended consequences, I'd rather it wasn't part of a 
> 'Default' or 'Full'
> install.
> 
> Regards,
> Jamie.
> 
> --
> http://www.testdriven.net
> http://twitter.com/jcansdale
> http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Charlie 
> Poole<charlie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> >> I think your points pretty much cover it.
> >>
> >> > 2. User must copy the framework to the output directory if
> >> not using
> >> > the GAC.
> >> >
> >> Unless we ensure that it's installed in the Mono GAC as 
> well, this is 
> >> an extra thing that every Mono user will need to remember. A 
> >> potential issue with the Mono GAC is that there's a GAC per Mono 
> >> version. If someone installs a new Mono version, the 
> >> 'nunit.framework' won't be in the GAC. This will lead to 
> inconsistent 
> >> behaviour between machines.
> >
> > I'll bring this to the mono-devel list. In previous 
> discussions with 
> > Miguel, he has been arguing for putting things like the nunit 
> > framework in the GAC - and I've been arguing on your side of it. :-)
> >
> > But you're right, and I just ran into this problem when I wanted to 
> > test smokey. It wouldn't run on Mono 2.4.2, because it used a 
> > different version of cecil, so I had to go back to Mono 2.4.
> >
> >> I think this is a pretty serious con for Mono users. What pros are 
> >> there for putting the framework in the GAC?
> >
> > As nunit.framework is currently written, probably none.
> >
> > I guess I'm looking ahead a month or two to the point where we have 
> > the test loading and running functionality from core in the 
> framework 
> > as well. Runners will need to find the right framework. 
> However, I can 
> > see now that I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's leave the option in 
> > Andreas' install program and experiment with it as needed 
> rather than 
> > trying to decide on an a priori basis. Does that make sense?
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Jamie.
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.testdriven.net
> >> http://twitter.com/jcansdale
> >> http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Charlie Poole<charlie@xxxxxxxxx> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Jamie,
> >> >
> >> >> > An installer could put the framework into the mono GAC
> >> as well, if
> >> >> > mono were installed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> It *could*, but do you really want to get into install order 
> >> >> dependencies with Mono? Installing 'nunit.framework' into
> >> the .NET &
> >> >> Mono GACs would add (IMHO unnecessary) complexity to 
> the installer.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I haven't checked it out, but I think it's just a
> >> single command
> >> > that has to be run. I'm pretty sure we can do it if we want to.
> >> >
> >> >> > I think there are pros and cons of using the GAC but I'm
> >> not sure I
> >> >> > understand the distinction you're making.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Maybe 'platform' would have been a better word to use than 
> >> >> 'infrastructure'. I think the GAC is a good place for
> >> assemblies that
> >> >> are part of the platform (they are large and often bound to the 
> >> >> underlying OS). Using xcopy deployment for small library
> >> assemblies
> >> >> (like 'nunit.framework') works well and keeps things simple.
> >> >
> >> > That makes some sense.
> >> >
> >> >> The crux of the issue is - do we want the default to be 
> for Visual 
> >> >> Studio to copy 'nunit.framework' into the output
> >> directory? Copying
> >> >> it into the output directory is the easiest way to 
> ensure that it 
> >> >> works on .NET and Mono. What do we gain by not copying the 
> >> >> 'nunit.framework'
> >> >> assembly?
> >> >
> >> > I don't really see that as the crux. If we put it in the
> >> GAC, then the
> >> > copy setting won't matter. The copy in the GAC will be used
> >> in either
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure either way. Maybe we need a list of ways in 
> which the 
> >> > decision impacts the user...
> >> >
> >> > 1. User must navigate to the install location and add a
> >> reference in
> >> > either case - or get it from the add reference dialog if
> >> using Visual
> >> > Studio.
> >> >
> >> > 2. User must copy the framework to the output directory if
> >> not using
> >> > the GAC.
> >> >
> >> > 3. User must deploy the framework if distributing tests in
> >> either case
> >> > - because it's not known what will be installed on the
> >> machine of that
> >> > user's user.
> >> >
> >> > Any other points to consider?
> >> >
> >> > Charlie
> >> >
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Jamie.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> http://www.testdriven.net
> >> >> http://twitter.com/jcansdale
> >> >> http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Charlie 
> Poole<charlie@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Jamie,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> My best argument for not using the GAC is that it's runtime 
> >> >> >> implementation specific. If you default to using the GAC,
> >> >> you won't
> >> >> >> be able to execute your tests under Mono. This would 
> be a shame 
> >> >> >> because NUnit does support Mono.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's not true, for two reasons:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1. Mono has a GAC, and currently the version of the
> >> NUnit framework
> >> >> > distributed with Mono is in it. Mono seems to use their GAC
> >> >> much more
> >> >> > extensively than Microsoft recommends for their .NET. An
> >> installer
> >> >> > could put the framework into the mono GAC as well, if 
> mono were 
> >> >> > installed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2. It has not been proposed that NUnit should _require_ the
> >> >> framework
> >> >> > to be in the GAC. NUnit doesn't care how the framework is
> >> >> accessed by
> >> >> > the tests, since it doesn't reference it. Of course, this
> >> >> discussion
> >> >> > may arise again for the core - but that's another matter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The Mono team are also currently working on Mono Tools
> >> for Visual
> >> >> >> Studio (which will mean more people executing Mono 
> from Visual
> >> >> >> Studio):
> >> >> >> http://www.go-mono.com/monovs/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you use TestDriven.Net's 'Test With > Mono' command with 
> >> >> >> 'nunit.framework' in the GAC, you will see:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> TestCase 'M:SomeTests.TestClass.Test'
> >> >> >> failed: Could not load file or assembly 'nunit.framework, 
> >> >> >> Version=2.5.1.9189, Culture=neutral,
> >> >> PublicKeyToken=96d09a1eb7f44a77'
> >> >> >> or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the
> >> >> file specified.
> >> >> >>       System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not 
> load file or 
> >> >> >> assembly 'nunit.framework, Version=2.5.1.9189, 
> Culture=neutral, 
> >> >> >> PublicKeyToken=96d09a1eb7f44a77' or one of its
> >> dependencies. The
> >> >> >> system cannot find the file specified.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you didn't have the framework available, that's what
> >> should have
> >> >> > happened. You can make it available either by placing 
> it in the 
> >> >> > ApplicationBase or by putting it into the *Mono* GAC.
> >> >> > I'm guessing you put it into the Microsoft GAC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I think the GAC is most appropriate for infrastructure
> >> assemblies
> >> >> >> (e.g. System.*) not libraries (like 'nunit.framework').
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think there are pros and cons of using the GAC but I'm
> >> not sure I
> >> >> > understand the distinction you're making. If you're writing
> >> >> tests, the
> >> >> > framework is definitely part of your infrastructure. Is
> >> it because
> >> >> > it's not Microsoft code?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Charlie
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> >> Jamie.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> http://www.testdriven.net
> >> >> >> http://twitter.com/jcansdale
> >> >> >> http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Charlie
> >> Poole<charlie@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hi Fabio and Everyone,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Let's discuss this. Pros? Cons?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Personally, I'm in favor. I think it makes life easier for
> >> >> >> users, some
> >> >> >> > of whom are confused by the need to copy the framework to
> >> >> >> the output
> >> >> >> > directory. They (falsely) assume that NUnit will find
> >> >> the framework
> >> >> >> > for them. It also makes life easier for any third-party
> >> >> runner that
> >> >> >> > needs to reference it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As far as the default, I'd vote for the GAC as the only
> >> >> >> option for the
> >> >> >> > msi install. If someone wants to run it from their
> >> project tree
> >> >> >> > instead, they can use the binary zip.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Charlie
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> >> > From: 
> nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> [mailto:nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> >> >> On
> >> >> >> > Behalf Of Fabio Maulo
> >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:54 AM
> >> >> >> > To: nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Nunit-dev] Installation layout for NUnit V3
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have only one issue about installation.
> >> >> >> > IMO we should have an explicit option to install the
> >> >> >> framework in the
> >> >> >> > GAC and the default should be "false".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2009/7/30 Andreas Schlapsi <a.schlapsi@xxxxxx>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi Charlie,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I created a prototype for the NUnit Framework Installer
> >> >> >> yesterday. It
> >> >> >> >> packages the NUnit Framework for .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0
> >> >> >> (and later for
> >> >> >> >> .NET 3.5 and 4.0) and suppresses all variants in the
> >> >> feature tree
> >> >> >> >> without corresponding .NET version installed on the target
> >> >> >> computer.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It installs the framework assemblies under <Program
> >> >> >> >> Files>\NUnit
> >> >> >> >> 3.0\Framework\net-1.1 or <Program Files>\NUnit
> >> >> >> 3.0\Framework\net-2.0.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What about documentation? Will the framework documentation
> >> >> >> be separated?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Andreas
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Charlie Poole wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Hi Andreas,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > In breaking NUnit into multiple projects, I tried to
> >> >> >> take several
> >> >> >> >> > things into account:
> >> >> >> >> >   * Different teams working on different projects
> >> >> >> >> >   * Independent release cycles
> >> >> >> >> >   * Possibility of third-party alternatives
> >> >> >> >> >   * Separate installation.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > At the moment, I think we only need to decide how to
> >> >> install the
> >> >> >> >> > framework, since we only have a framework project for
> >> >> NUnit 3.0.
> >> >> >> >> > When we add - for example - a gui project, we'll of
> >> >> >> course need a
> >> >> >> >> > separate install for that.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > In the future, we may want to create a combined
> >> installer for
> >> >> >> >> > windows - one that bundles one or more frameworks
> >> >> with gui and
> >> >> >> >> > console runners and possibly other stuff. Note
> >> that this is a
> >> >> >> >> > Windows-only problem, since linux distros have package
> >> >> >> management
> >> >> >> >> > systems to take care of dependencies between
> >> >> individual packages.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So, for now I think the issue is how to structure the
> >> >> >> installation
> >> >> >> >> > of the framework only. This is not as simple as it
> >> >> sounds, since
> >> >> >> >> > the framework is tailored to a version of .NET and
> >> >> there may be
> >> >> >> >> > multiple versions on a machine.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > BTW, There will be a place on a wiki to actually post
> >> >> specs very
> >> >> >> >> > soon. For now we have to discuss here and/or post
> >> >> >> directly on the
> >> >> >> >> > Whiteboard.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Charlie
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> >> >> From:
> >> >> >> >> >> nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> [mailto:nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> >> >> t] On Behalf Of Andreas Schlapsi
> >> >> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:07 AM
> >> >> >> >> >> To: NUnit Developer Mailing List
> >> >> >> >> >> Subject: [Nunit-dev] Installation layout for NUnit V3
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm working on the installer blueprint
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nunit-3.0/+spec/install-proj
> >> >> >> >> >> ect) and one of the todos is to decide on an
> >> >> >> installation layout.
> >> >> >> >> >> It should allow multiple frameworks to be installed
> >> >> separately
> >> >> >> >> >> from runners like nunit-gui.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Does this mean that we want separate installers for the
> >> >> >> framework
> >> >> >> >> >> and the runners? Do we need an installer for the
> >> >> framework? The
> >> >> >> >> >> framework assemblies are often checked in to
> >> source control.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Andreas
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> >> Post to     :
> >> >> >> >> >> nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> >> >> >> https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> >> >> >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> >> Post to     :
> >> >> >> >> > nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> >> >> > https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> >> >> > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev 
> Post to     :
> >> >> >> >> nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> >> >> https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> >> >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Fabio Maulo
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev 
> Post to     :
> >> >> >> > nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> >> > https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> >> > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev Post to     :
> >> >> >> nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> >> https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev Post to     :
> >> >> nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> >> >> https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev More help   :
> >> >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>