[Mono-dev] Arguing for reconsideration of WONTFIX status of 425512

StApostol stapostol at gmail.com
Thu Feb 12 14:00:43 EST 2009

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Lucas Meijer <lucas at lucasmeijer.com> wrote:

> I'm not advocating for _not_ implementing more proper behaviour upstream.
> > I did not get the feeling (or maybe it is part of my lost email) that
> > I have heard the "againsts" yet.
> So far I think it can be summarized as:
> 1)  It takes nonzero time, and there are a zillion more important things
> to do.
> 2)  It could break projects that are mono-only and rely on the same hack.
> 3)  In the original comment on the bugzilla issue, it was noted that the
> "field is shared with the runtime", and that
>     that would make a fix ugly.
> I actually think #1 is a good argument against,  #2 is not very likely,
> but not totally impossible either, and to what extent #3 is a problem,
> I don't know.
> Bye, Lucas

#2 is more likely than you think. There are applications out there that
employ such hacks with proper safeguards. Such a change would make 2-3
improperly coded applications work, but it would risk breaking n other
applications that are correctly written to check for .Net and Mono! (though
"correctly" is a bit stretched when talking about such hacks).

Another issue is that such a change invites the wrong mentality: "My
application relies on undocumented .Net internals and does not run on Mono.
I blame Mono." This is just plain wrong.

A fifth issue is that undocumented .Net behavior may change at any time. If
Mono is patched, these applications will remain open to future breakage. If
the applications are patched, no such danger exists.

This bug should be taken to the developers of the original application.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20090212/c093cd81/attachment.html 

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list