Re: incremental build not optimal?
- From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <thote@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:29:16 +0200
"Johann Blake" <johannblake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122887820.693375.271820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thorsten,
>
> Linking is never a part of the .NET Framework concept. Code is compiled
> to CLR format.
ok, but some kind of linking must happen at some point, right?
> Is your project divided up into various projects?
yes. we have one solution with 10+ projects.
should we just have one gigantic project?
> If so, you only need
> to recompile what you change.
right. that's what I thought.
by "what you change", do you then mean
1. only the files with changes, or
2. files with changes and all files that have imports elements from those
files
?
>A total recompile of all projects is
> never necessary.
no. agree.
> Dependencies shouldn't be a problem if you put your
> common DLLs into the GAC and turn off automatic versioning.
when I speak of dependencies I mean the ones defined
from with visual studio. you don't mean that we should
put those often changing dll's into the GAC, do you?
best regards
Thorsten
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: incremental build not optimal?
- From: Johann Blake
- Re: incremental build not optimal?
- References:
- [visual studio 2003 build system] incremental build not optimal?
- From: Thorsten Ottosen
- Re: incremental build not optimal?
- From: Johann Blake
- [visual studio 2003 build system] incremental build not optimal?
- Prev by Date: Re: incremental build not optimal?
- Next by Date: Refreshing a Windows Form
- Previous by thread: Re: incremental build not optimal?
- Next by thread: Re: incremental build not optimal?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|