To strong name or not

[emertechie]

Received a request to strong name the assembly so adding an issue for discussion.

I've always found strong naming pretty painful myself, and I know it leads to a lot of debate. See this comment and Microsoft's own recommendations here also.

So I'd naturally lean against it but if there's a genuine need, and someone is willing to do a pull request and merge it (cough, cough @grubman :) ) then fine by me.

[dmitry-shechtman]

Please do.

If you're really opposed to it, you may release the signed package separately as SyslogNet.Client.Signed, in the worst of NuGet tradition :)

Let me know what you think, and whether you want me to do the PR.

[grubman]

I have no problem to merge and check it. I have a fairly busy week, so I'll find some time to read the links and decide how to release it only next week :)

[dmitry-shechtman]

I fail to see any problem with releasing just the strongly named one, given that the private key used for signing it is public.

[dmitry-shechtman]

#11

[grubman]

a lot of time have passed, and no PR was presented. closing it...