Re: [dotNetRDF-Develop] What .Net profiles should we support going forward?

[Khalil A. <ka...@ne...>]

I would be surprised if many people are using WP7 and SL4 for development
any longer. BrightstarDB does have these targets, but I'm considering
removing them too in favour of PCL builds that target WP8 and SL5. If you
took them out of DotNetRDF, I would have the perfect excuse! :-)

I have done some building with Xamarin libraries and I chose to go for
Profile 158 which is
portable-net45+sl5+wp80+win8+MonoAndroid10+MonoTouch10. I think that should
be compatible with your selected profile (though the whole profile thing is
just an opaque mess).

I hit the problem of incompatible SL versions. If you take out the mono*
targets you are forced to include SL4 (you end up with Profile 154 which is
portable-net45+sl4+wp80+win8) Your approach of having the none mono profile
*not* include SL at all is probably the way to go. I may well do the same
with BrightstarDB.

As for client profile, as far as I'm away this is all totally upward
compatible with full profile, isn't it ? If so then I have no problem with
those modules that don't need full profile being built with client profile.
The only thing I would say is be careful of imposing a limitation on
yourself that you will regret later!

Cheers

Kal




On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Rob Vesse <rv...@do...> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> So the discussions in the last week or two about issues with NuGet
> dependency conflicts involving Json.Net highlights that our choice of .Net
> profiles is somewhat behind the times.  The Json.Net folks have moved to
> only supporting standard .Net plus PCL I.e. they've dropped Windows Phone
> and Silverlight specific builds
>
> The problem for us is this means we can't upgrade dependencies for our
> Windows Phone and Silverlight builds so first question is should we drop
> those builds entirely?  Particularly since we're targeting deprecated
> versions of those platforms (Windows Phone 7) in some cases.
>
> The next problem is that our PCL build targets an older PCL profile that
> no longer aligns with Json.Net so we can't upgrade dependencies for that
> build either currently.  So the second question is should we update our PCL
> profile to align with more recent profiles?  For reference the current
> Json.Net builds support the following PCL profiles:
>
>
>    - portable-net40+sl5+wp80+win8+monotouch+monoandroid
>    - portable-net45+wp80+win8
>
> Would there be any objections to moving our PCL targets to align with
> these?
>
> Another longer term point, on the 1.9 branch I'm already working on
> modularising the code so some of the new modules will no longer need to be
> Full Profile since they won't need anything not in Client Profile.
>  Therefore I'm also thinking we should start to only target Client Profile
> where possible which will require fewer builds to be maintained
>
> What do people think of these ideas?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Put Bad Developers to Shame
> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
> _______________________________________________
> dotNetRDF-develop mailing list
> dot...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dotnetrdf-develop
>
>


-- 
Kal Ahmed
Director, Networked Planet Limited
e: kal...@ne...
w: www.networkedplanet.com