I'm using the latest version of SubSonic (3.0.3). I'm having a problem with building my solution when my assembly is signed. I get an error stating the 'SubSonic.Core' assembly does not have a strong name. Can I not use SubSonic with a signed assembly?
+1
A:
You will need to rebuild the SubSonic.Core assembly in a way that it gets a strong name/signed.
See also:
Why can’t strongly named assemblies use assemblies that aren’t signed?
Michael Maddox
2009-10-24 10:50:06
I was really hoping to not have to build the source code for SubSonic.Core. I would think that the owner of the project would sign the assembly before it's released. Is there a flaw in my thinking that? Thanks for the link, I understand the purpose of signing the assembly, but in this case I'm just wanting to use SubSonic as a 3rd party provider for buliding my DAL and it seems like overkill for me to have to build the source.
Adrian
2009-10-25 00:27:32
Signed assemblies are usually not needed and they are a much bigger hassle to deal with. Certainly Rob Conery could make a signed version of the DLL available for download. In this case, building from source seems to be the most effective way to get your problem solved. Another option is to consider ORMs that have packaging that meets your needs (I'm not aware which ORMs may already provide signed assemblies for download however).
Michael Maddox
2009-10-25 11:13:56
do we violate any points of subsonic license by doing this?
Krunal
2010-01-28 10:37:07
@Krunal: SubSonic is open source, so it is just fine to rebuild it from source. I'm not aware of any way this situation could violate an open source license, but I'm not a lawyer.
Michael Maddox
2010-01-28 11:57:50
@Michael Ok! :)
Krunal
2010-01-28 12:42:31