Scott Hunter - .NET Core SDK

Sign in to queue

The Discussion

  • User profile image
    ShardingKing

    I love how they say that the change to "csproj" for .net core wasn't going to lose anything/must, but this video shows why there was so much lash out because of the change away from "project.json".

    When updating "csproj" notice that Scott uses the VS tooling to start the template of adding a dependencies section instead of by hand. It adds an "ItemGroup" (Not an intuitive node parent name for references) and then makes "PackageReference" nodes. Thereafter, to make another reference by hand, he choses to do a copy/paste job because its not easy to write out. This format is extremely tedious to individuals who use things like VIM instead, and CLI commands or IDEs do not fix this pain.

  • User profile image
    WinInsider

    During demo, when publishing asp.net core app to Azure Docker Service, on the screen, Linux docker was the only choice visible... Can/will Windows option be coming soon, via that publishing wizard?

  • User profile image
    BCR

    To respond to the comment about moving to .csproj, there is information missing there, and the viewer perhaps wasn't paying close enough attention. The move to .csproj was to unify the projects such that they could reference each other, as Scott mentions. All the other types (Xamarin, etc.) already used MSBuild csproj files, so that was the natural, least prone to friction approach. They had a lot of trouble getting everything to play nice with project.json and the existing csproj so in the interest of getting something solid released that isn't held up forever by such issues, there were natural trade-offs.
    The ItemGroup element is a part of MSBuild. Perhaps in the future they will add element names that are more intuitive. That's one of the trade-offs. One benefit of this approach is that you only have one file with reference information etc. instead of package.json and project.json. This consolidation alone has already been of benefit to me personally. They could certainly streamline this approach going forward such as the makeup of a .csproj file; obviously this doesn't live in a vacuum and improvements are likely to be made over time.
    As far as "lash-out," it's clear to me from what Scott is saying that there would have been a lot more of that had they not tried to take this step when they did.

Add Your 2 Cents