Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
One of the value propositions of this port is that it can be included in a
project
without generating additional DLL files. i.e. You can include it in an
application
that is deployed as nothing more than a single EXE file (indeed, we are working
on a
project that includes a "C# embedded" webserver and a C#-SQLite database and
installation is as simple as downloading a single EXE file).
If creating a library project would cause an additional DLL's to be generated,
then
in spite of the "more dotnet like" advantages, it might be advisable to rethink
this
suggestion.
Original comment by Stringed...@gmail.com
on 8 Sep 2009 at 9:04
At any time you can il-merge several DLLs into calling EXE. No need to prepare
for
that in code.
Original comment by subm...@gmail.com
on 9 Sep 2009 at 8:18
Jay, this is your issue. The points raised are valid. What is your thinking
about
why one engine is needed?
Original comment by noah.hart@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2009 at 2:20
The point is not much library vs. embedding the code. If we go with the library
approach, it won't be possible to take advantage of compiler directives. I see
this
as necessary when compiling the code for Silverlight.
But adding a main Assembly .CSPROJ file is ok so we have the best of both
worlds.
Original comment by enzinol@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2009 at 4:56
Jay, Unless you have further comments on this, I will close the issue
Original comment by noah.hart@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:45
Original comment by noah.hart@gmail.com
on 26 Jan 2010 at 1:07
Original comment by noah.hart@gmail.com
on 17 Feb 2011 at 2:00
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Jay.Beav...@gmail.com
on 12 Aug 2009 at 3:03