Strong naming

[Bringer128]

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.

[leastprivilege]

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

[Bringer128]

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

[leastprivilege]

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.

[dvsekhvalnov]

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

[Bringer128]

@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.

[dvsekhvalnov]

@Bringer128 feel free to go with StrongNameSigner.

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

[Bringer128]

Thanks @dvsekhvalnov - I'll continue with StrongNameSigner.