[Mono-bugs] [Bug 57602][Wis] Changed - Mono major assembly loader issues

bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:08:06 -0400 (EDT)

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by jackson@ximian.com.


--- shadow/57602	2004-04-26 13:49:32.000000000 -0400
+++ shadow/57602.tmp.2953	2004-04-26 15:08:06.000000000 -0400
@@ -5,13 +5,13 @@
 OS Details: 
 Status: NEW   
 Severity: Unknown
 Priority: Wishlist
 Component: misc
-AssignedTo: mono-bugs@ximian.com                            
+AssignedTo: jackson@ximian.com                            
 ReportedBy: gert.driesen@pandora.be               
 QAContact: mono-bugs@ximian.com
 TargetMilestone: ---
 Summary: Mono major assembly loader issues
 BugsThisDependsOn: 57612
@@ -238,6 +238,29 @@
 But we need to let other folks like Jackson, Paolo and Zoltan weight
 in on this subject, we might be able to get this feature in time for
 1.0 (no guarantees yet).
+------- Additional Comments From jackson@ximian.com  2004-04-26 15:08 -------
+This is a relatively simple feature to implement (issue #1). We just
+need to remove the code that loads all referenced assemblies when an
+assembly is loaded and change some code to use mono_assembly_load
+instead of search_loaded when looking up assemblies (for example
+custom attributes only searches loaded assemblies). This will actually
+be slightly slower then loading all referenced assemblies at load time
+for most cases. I will look into implementing this shortly. As always
+other issues may arrive though....
+As for issue #2, I haven't done enough research on private bin path to
+know exactly what needs to be done. My guess is that this feature will
+take longer to implement and we MAY not be able to get it into Mono
+1.0. I'll invest some time on this today and update when I have more
+info. Gert do you have a suitable workaround for this, or is it
+completly critical for Nant? How come you need to use a separate
+log4net? Possibly it would be easier for us to fix the log4net issues.
+Thanks for the report Gert, it is appreciated,