Strong naming guidance needed for .NET Framework

[dprothero]

The article seems to indicate we should always strongly name our assemblies. It also says we shouldn't publish strong-named and non-strong-named versions. However, at the same time, it admits the many issues with strict assembly loading and the .NET Framework. Can we clarify the guidance here? Is strong-naming still advised even in open source libraries published for .NET Framework?

Or, is this guidance specifically for .NET Core, Xamarin, UWP, and most other .NET implementations that don't have strict assembly loading?

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: 90b392eb-c8a1-147f-e3fb-35b8ec702d53
• Version Independent ID: ffd3b865-f141-3f92-473b-fbfb9d32913b
• Content: Strong naming and .NET libraries
• Content Source: docs/standard/library-guidance/strong-naming.md
• Product: dotnet
• GitHub Login: @JamesNK
• Microsoft Alias: mairaw

[mairaw]

@JamesNK @terrajobst can you help with this feedback related to strong naming? Thanks!

[JamesNK]

All the information you should know is already in the article.

There are reason you should strong name, and some reason why you shouldn't. The end decision on strong naming up to you which is why the recommendation is consider rather than should.

[terrajobst]

Is strong-naming still advised even in open source libraries published for .NET Framework?

Yes.

[terrajobst]

@mairaw I'm open to suggestions on how we could make this clearer. I second @JamesNK comment that the guidance should be clear.

[dotnet-bot]

This issue has been closed as part of the issue backlog grooming process outlined in #22351.

That automated process may have closed some issues that should be addressed. If you think this is one of them, reopen it with a comment explaining why. Tag the @dotnet/docs team for visibility.