"Default" 3.0.2 download contains SL binaries

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 20:21:46

What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Download Autofac 3.0.2 from https://code.google.com/p/autofac/downloads/detail?name=Autofac.3.0.2.zip&can=2&q= 2. Open Autofac.dll in decompiler What is the expected output? What do you see instead? I would expect the "default" .NET binaries, instead it's a SL build of Autofac. Evident by the version of System.Core it depends on. I just upgrade from Autofac 2.6 and it depends on System.Core 4.0.0. The binaries I got for 3.0.2 depend on System.Core 2.0.50, causing errors on some of my production machines which don't have Silverlight binaries in the GAC.

Only after debugging for a few hours I realized that the download page linked above actually says "portable", it's just that I never noticed and the zip name does not indicate it.

Please provide a sensible "default" zip with the standard binaries, and make specialised binaries explicit in the archive name (like done with other extensions already; I would expect something like "Autofac.3.0.2.Portable"). Please use labels and text to provide additional information.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/autofac/issues/detail?id=449

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 03:25:35

Sorry the System.Core I quote above shouldn't have been "2.0.50" but "2.0.5.0"

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 03:33:51

To add to this, I got the latest 3.0.2 via public NuGet repo and both the "net40" and the "portable" binary folders within it contain SL assemblies. The "net40" really should have an assembly using System.Core 4.0.0

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 03:59:01

I'm struggling to find a clean NET40 build from any official source. Forcing me to install the Portable Class Library doesn't seem like a viable alternative :-/

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 04:46:39

OK, apparently the source code move to use the Portable Class Libraries in ver3 totally broke on our prod machines; ironic given that in order to be portable you need to install it on machines that are running .NET 4 perfectly fine. It would be great if the binaries in the nuget package located under "net40" actually had net4 in them, though rather than SL.

I'm afraid I will have to revert back to 2.6 because of this. 3 is unusable for me now - unfortunate, because feature wise and all it is perfectly compatible.

I tried building from source but the entire process in VS/MSBuild is totally hard-wired to be "portable", preventing me from building a proper net40 without wasting more time on this :-/

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 04:50:01

this is not a new issue, apparently others are seeing it to

example: http://devlicio.us/blogs/derik_whittaker/archive/2012/07/23/fileloadexception-could-not-load-file-for-version-2-0-5-0-portable-class-library.aspx I don't think it was a good move to add yet another dependency to Autofac. Without installing things to my prod machines (not an option right now, prod critical and there are LOTS) I won't be able to use ver3

[alexmg]

From alex.meyergleaves on July 04, 2013 05:59:17

The weird version number is not actually a problem and is how PCL works. The portable assembly works with .NET 4.0+, Windows Phone 8, Silverlight 5 and Windows Store apps.

Travis has a blog post about this: http://www.paraesthesia.com/archive/2013/03/29/portable-class-library-answers.aspx There is also a section in the FAQ on the wiki: https://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

Status: Invalid

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 07:01:01

I understand that. Point is though, you basically broke compatibility with .NET 4 before a very new version in an effort to become portable.

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 07:13:18

So given that this is invalid now, I understand that you guys are officially dropping support for .NET 4 from before that patch? A very disappointing decision. You could at least build .NET 4 proper and include it in the releases.

[alexmg]

From alex.meyergleaves on July 04, 2013 07:23:25

That patch was published on the 6/8/2011 and the first 3.0 release wasn't until January 2013. I have not seen a machine without this patch or a newer version of the framework installed (Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Platform Update 1) for a very long time. We moved to PCL to support a wider range of runtimes without having multiple projects or directives littered throughout the code. Prior to this it was essentially impossible to test the surface area of Autofac against different runtimes because there aren't unit test runners for each them. Is there a reason you have not updated the .NET Framework on your machine?

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 07:43:52

I understand why you did it, I just don't understand why there's no simple way to get the source to build .NET 4 explicitly without the esoteric PCL magic. I just created a new solution with new projects and my own nuspec file using .NET 4 and copy pasted all of the Core and Configuration files into that new solution so I can build a .NET 4 proper assembly... this is not going to scale well.

It's not just my random dev box, otherwise this would be easy. We have swarms of servers out there that are running all kinds of .NET apps just fine, but just seem to be missing this update for whatever reason (they are not connected to standard Windows Update for various reasons). These are business critical boxes for which there is procedure and whatnot, and it will be a difficult argument to roll out a patch just so I can use Autofac 3.

[alexmg]

From estrada.raphael on July 04, 2013 07:57:06

I got my hand-built Autofac3 working now. Works fine on the boxes in question. I guess I'll have to stick with this crutch for the foreseeable future.

I didn't mean to offend anyone here, I love Autofac and the work you guys put into it. But the irony that I can't use the newest version because it's now more portable is just killing me :-/

[alexmg]

From alex.meyergleaves on July 05, 2013 05:51:02

I'm glad you got it working, and can assure you no offence was taken. It's always frustrating hitting roadblocks when trying to move to something new (we hit plenty of those ourselves). Hopefully over time you can get those boxes up-to-date and won't have to worry about the custom build. Introducing something like the PCL was always going to involve some growing pains. Overall we are fairly happy with how it has worked out, and we are seeing a lot less of these kinds of issues. Autofac 2.6 was a solid release and if it continued to meet your requirements there is nothing wrong with sticking with something that works. :)