NuGet Package Dependencies

Dec 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Hi Marcel,

I had a question regarding the new NuGet Package.  Listed on the NuGet site, it states that there are no dependencies.  Isn't DAF dependent on at least Caliburn Micro?  If so, it would be helpful if the NuGet packaged had that dependency identified.  What do you think?

http://nuget.org/packages/DAF

Andrew

Coordinator
Dec 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM

That's what I had at the beginning. The issue is these are dependencies to other NuGet packages and they get downloaded and installed as part of the DAF package. That's what I wanted, but the Caliburn Micro NuGet package adds some sample classes to the project that would just confuse people, because they don't work as-is with DAF. So, I changed it and included the Caliburn assembly in my package instead.

Dec 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Regarding the latest NuGet release then – DAF is dependent on 6.1.4. Once I installed the DAF (latest version) my solution wouldn’t compile – because I had 6.1.3 installed and DAF was looking for 6.1.4. It doesn’t look like 6.1.4 is available for download yet (at least by evaluators). What’s the best way to get DevForce 6.1.4? Has it been released yet to the public?

Coordinator
Dec 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Yes, it has and it should be available for download. Let me find out what's going on.

Coordinator
Dec 9, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Andrew,

6.1.4 should now be available for the trial download. Here's the link to download it. The trial key you got before should still work.

http://www.ideablade.com/DevForceDownloads/v6/DevForceUniversal.6.1.4.zip

Dec 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Thanks Marcel – we will try it out today.

From: marcelgood [email removed]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 3:21 AM
To: Andrew Denysenko
Subject: Re: NuGet Package Dependencies [devforcecaliburn:282314]

From: marcelgood

Andrew,

6.1.4 should now be available for the trial download. Here's the link to download it. The trial key you got before should still work.

http://www.ideablade.com/DevForceDownloads/v6/DevForceUniversal.6.1.4.zip

Dec 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Marcel,

Correct me if I am wrong, but since we also need to utilize Caliburn.Micro (CM) because DAF requires it and developers will want to pull down CM via NuGet as well – won’t pulling Caliburn.Micro anyway add the same sample classes to the project that you were hoping to avoid. If this logic is sound then (maybe I missing something) won’t it be easier/better to couple DAF to Caliburn.Micro – that way you could also specify the specific version that DAF is dependent upon and it is a bit easier to set up an initial project to use DAF.

What do you think?

Andrew

From: marcelgood [email removed]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:50 PM
To: Andrew Denysenko
Subject: Re: NuGet Package Dependencies [devforcecaliburn:282314]

From: marcelgood

That's what I had at the beginning. The issue is these are dependencies to other NuGet packages and they get downloaded and installed as part of the DAF package. That's what I wanted, but the Caliburn Micro NuGet package adds some sample classes to the project that would just confuse people, because they don't work as-is with DAF. So, I changed it and included the Caliburn assembly in my package instead.

Coordinator
Dec 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM

There's no reason or need to pull down CM seperatly from DAF. DAF is self-contained and integrates CM. Aside from the sample classes there's nothing in the CM package that isn't part of the DAF package. If you want to use a different version of CM you would have to build DAF yourself against that version anyway.

Dec 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM

That makes sense. Thanks.