Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move the working BinaryFormatter implementation to a NuGet package #103255
Move the working BinaryFormatter implementation to a NuGet package #103255
Changes from 5 commits
c508a3c
f3b7ba8
3dd94ff
ad7974f
d69488f
eaaa177
72c9197
9c68be5
a5c760d
be4a980
abdae6f
5bb3345
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you intend to leave these Console.WriteLines in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do/did. When a test wants to use BinaryFormatter it leaves a place where it becomes clear why it's there or not.
But, if there's objection, I can certainly remove them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need to build this for .NET 8?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's the best/only way I could find for having two builds for the DLL, one where BF works (net8/NuGet) and one where it doesn't (net9/shared runtime).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where are the problems with building the non-working inbox version via independent project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm. The original plan was to typeforward BinaryFormatter out into a new library and do the package trick there (which would still have required making two copies), but it turns out that System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.dll is itself basically the minimum closure of BinaryFormatter.
It sounds like your suggestion is to sort of do that again, making something like
I don't know how well our build system would like that. And since the preview snap date is Tuesday, I don't know that I have the time to find out before then. We could explore it after.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, something like that. The current scheme where the build for NetCoreAppMinimum is meant for NetCoreAppCurrent is not easy to understand. It is fine to explore something better later. It is possible that what you have put together is the best out of all bad solutions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
NuGet limits us here. It doesn't support specifying multiple TFMs that map to the same TargetFrameworkMoniker+TargetPlatformMoniker tuple in a project. There's a proposal up to fix that eventually but until then, separate projects need to be used in such scenarios.
We have multiple source generator project files per rdifferent roslyn targeting pack version because of the exact same reason.
I would agree with Jan that the current solution might be good enough for what's proposed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Worth caching (or caching a delegate created to it)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be even better to use UnsafeAccessor - no reflection, no delegates, no caching. UnsafeAccessor
shipped in 8.0 that is the current
NetCoreAppMinimum
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
StartDeserialization
returns a public type that isn't in the reference assembly; it looks likeUnsafeAccessor
requires an exact signature match. So, unless there's an unsafe typeref I don't think we can use it here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CreateDelegate
is similarly not an option, it refuses to loose-bind the return type (struct).Slow invoke works, or we can add another method in corelib that does the boxing to IDisposable there so it can be bound with UnsafeAccessor. I'm guessing we don't like that option, so I'm guessing we're sticking with slow-invoke. But either way I've moved this to a different type, and am at least saving the MethodInfo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we rather get rid of this (it would be my preference), or turn it into a public API?
The non-public dependencies of OOB nuget packages like this one are always factory for problems.