Strong naming

Question

Strong naming

Bringer128 opened this issue 10 years ago · 7 comments

Bringer128 commented 10 years ago

Hi,

I'm hoping to get a strong-named version of this file to integrate into an enterprise project.

There are a few options to get this, and I'd like to know what your preferred method is:

I can fork this repository locally and add signing
I can use a tool like https://github.com/brutaldev/StrongNameSigner to sign the assembly received via NuGet.
I can request a signed version from the repository owners

Thanks.

Answer 1 · 2014-11-27T06:30:10.000Z

lol. strong naming is dead. Even Microsoft is moving away from it in their new CLR.

Answer 2 · 2014-11-27T06:57:22.000Z

I agree that it's going away, but it's not gone yet. Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on the word "Enterprise"?

Answer 3 · 2014-11-27T06:59:15.000Z

true. Well - I cannot speak for the project owner - but strong naming introduces a fair bit of complexity to OSS projects. Probably the best way is to fork it and sign it yourself.

Answer 4 · 2014-11-27T20:31:04.000Z

I need to think little bit about it. May be add separate nuget package: jose-jwt-signed as an option?

Answer 5 · 2014-11-28T00:38:51.000Z

@dvsekhvalnov Have you seen some of the online discussions related to this? E.g.

https://json.codeplex.com/workitem/22458
davidebbo/WebActivator#3
MvvmCross/MvvmCross#232

Chances are reading these will make you realise it's not worth the effort and tell me to use the StrongNameSigner tool. :)

Organisations like ServiceStack will provide strong-named assemblies directly to those who request it, but that's their choice to have that time budgeted for support.

Answer 6 · 2014-11-28T11:41:12.000Z

@Bringer128 feel free to go with StrongNameSigner.

If somebody else ever request strong signing again then we'll probably reconsider approach.

Answer 7 · 2014-11-30T23:32:19.000Z

Thanks @dvsekhvalnov - I'll continue with StrongNameSigner.