Support portable class libraries (PCL)

[Daniel-Svensson]

Allow common.logging to be used by portable libraries in order to allow it to be used on other platforms (Silverlight, windows store apps ..) than the .net desktop.

To do so all (portable) core-functionality should be moved into a portable assebly while platform specific functionallity is moved to platform specific assemblies.

So far @ioancrisan has made good progress towards making common.logging more portable by adding simple Silverlight and portable support and this is something we should be able to utilize.

See #21 for his contribution as well as some discussion about how to achive portable class lirbary support

[adamralph]

Has this been released? I still see only net35 and net40 targets in the NuGet package.

[screendriver]

Same here. I am using a portable class library project and need only a logging interface facade for that project. So I decided to use common-logging but unfortunately I can't use it because of there dependencies.

Update: forget my post above. Common.Logging.Core is exactly what I was looking for.

[sbohlen]

Yes; exactly :)

Do be advised however that shortly (probably as soon as this coming weekend over the next few days) we will actually be UNWINDING the present design of Common.Logging (where Common.Logging takes a dependency on Common.Logging.Core) and switching to a model where Common.Logging has NO dependency on Common.Logging.Core.

Instead, both the binary and the NuGet package for Common.Logging.Core will be deprecated (entirely) in favor of a new package, Common.Logging.Portable. Common.Logging and Common.Logging.Portable will each have nearly 100% of the same types, methods, etc. but Common.Logging.Portable will be the PCL version and Common.Logging will be non-PCL (as is the case now). As mentioned, these two packages will NO LONGER have any inter-dependencies.

The reasoning behind this is that the present choice of which types are in Common.Logging and which are in Common.Logging.Core is somewhat arbitrary and results in a somewhat crippled Common.Logging.Core experience where many of the "convenience classes" which are available in Common.Logging are absent from Common.Logging.Core.

This is more a side-effect of some of the constraints on sharing PCL-types with non-PCL types (i.e., where Common.Logging takes a dependency on Common.Logging.Core) than it is based on what would provide the maximum functionality for PCL-focused consumers of Common.Logging features. As such, switching to a new assembly/package for PCL support (Common.Logging.Portable) which will NOT any longer form the basis for the non-PCL Common.Logging will permit a PCL-experience where 99% of the same features and abstractions found in the full Common.Logging will be available in the new Common.Logging.Portable assembly/package.

We'll be relying upon conditional compilation directives in the source to ensure that both Common.Logging and the new Common.Logging.Portable remain in-sync with each other.

Hope this makes sense~!

[screendriver]

👍

[tofubear]

Do you have a time frame for Common.Logging.Portable release?
I'm hoping it will be soon :)

[sbohlen]

I'm expecting to complete this by the end of the month, so very shortly!

Steve Bohlen
sbohlen@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM, tofubear notifications@github.com wrote:

Do you have a time frame for Common.Logging.Portable release?
I'm hoping it will be soon :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/24#issuecomment-44419734
.

[tofubear]

Steve,
How goes the common logging portable release?
What are/were some of the main challenges you've had with developing a
portable version?

• Spencer

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Steve Bohlen notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'm expecting to complete this by the end of the month, so very shortly!

Steve Bohlen
sbohlen@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM, tofubear notifications@github.com
wrote:

Do you have a time frame for Common.Logging.Portable release?
I'm hoping it will be soon :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/net-commons/common-logging/issues/24#issuecomment-44419734>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment)
.

[sbohlen]

Actually, if you check the MASTER branch, you can see that I've basically got the re-work completed at this pt.

In the next few days I should be able to scrape together the free cycles necessary to complete the administrivia related to actually releasing this (release notes, nuget packages, etc) and get this out formally.

This release will likely not (yet) include support for newer loggers but will near-exclusively focus on the refactoring to address the re-think of the PCL story for Common.Logging.

Support for the several new loggers that have been offered as pull requests thus far (nlog, log4net, entlib logging) will likely be a subsequent release to follow shortly thereafter.

Cheers,

-Steve B.

-----Original Message-----
From: "tofubear" notifications@github.com
Sent: ‎6/‎10/‎2014 2:05 PM
To: "net-commons/common-logging" common-logging@noreply.github.com
Cc: "Steve Bohlen" sbohlen@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [common-logging] Support portable class libraries (PCL) (#24)

Steve,
How goes the common logging portable release?
What are/were some of the main challenges you've had with developing a
portable version?

• Spencer

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Steve Bohlen notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'm expecting to complete this by the end of the month, so very shortly!

Steve Bohlen
sbohlen@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM, tofubear notifications@github.com
wrote:

Do you have a time frame for Common.Logging.Portable release?
I'm hoping it will be soon :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/net-commons/common-logging/issues/24#issuecomment-44419734>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment)
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.