Strong name assemblies about activelogin.identity HOT 4 CLOSED

I’d say the primary reason is that it is the official recommendation for what we are doing. We will not take a dependency on anything else, but rather open up for other libraries to depend on us. Specifically this one that is handling “low level” data wrapping. I could see Swish or other financial API wrappers taking dependency on this.

from activelogin.identity.

I'd like to open up the discussion whether or not we would strong name our assemblies, because if so, we should do it before 1.0.0 as it is a Binary breaking change.

Microsoft does recommend it and it would open up fore more consumers, but it might have some downsides.

Input from @viktorvan and @fredrik-lundin maybe?

Making this the descussion for both ActiveLogin.Identity and ActiveLogin.Authentication (ActiveLogin/ActiveLogin.Authentication#25).

from activelogin.identity.

I can't see any issues with this. I don't think we depend on anything not strongly named?

from activelogin.identity.

Another thought that occured, do we know any strongly named assemblies that would reference us?

from activelogin.identity.