- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi,
Would it be possible to have a smaller dependence on the protobuf assembly? I already use it in my application and using NetworkComms causes trouble to have it in double. Could you suggest me how to avoid that? Could NetworkComms depend on a NuGet package of protobuf?
Regards,
David
Heya David,
Your best solution in this case, at least in the short term, is to build from source and use the individual DLLs in your projects. To see which DLLs are required by NetworkComms.Net please look at the build batch files in the SingleDLLBuild project of the solution. This will increase the number of references you may have to add but allows you to manage any dependencies yourself.
Regards,
MarcHi Marc,
I did that as well as to build a strong named assembly but then comes another problem: the protobuf assembly version. Without mentioning managing versions of your source code. That’s why I’m suggesting a protobuf NuGet package.
What if NetworkComms was serializer agnostic?
Regards,
David
Interesting. Changing our protobuf dependencies to a NuGet package may make things easier. We will investigate this as part of our next release.
The only solution available to you in the short term is to replace the dll and associated references in the source and rebuild if you need a specific version of protobuf.
edit to add: Our apologies, we admit this is a bit a faff.
Marc
Hi Marc,
Did you guys investigate on this matter?
Best regards,
David
Yeap, the final release of 3.0.0 will have no mandatory protobuf dependency. Protobuf serialisation will still be included but as an optional extension. This change did not make the the v3.0.0 beta1. We hope to have beta2 which includes this out in a few days.
Marc
Great!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.