Talk:Global Assembly Cache

message: I've removed it as this article hardly seems to be too far gone for most to get the general idea. Of course this article still needs work and expansion, but there is no excessive jargon or blithely abstract concept involved here. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical tag removed 

message: I can't even get what this is for. Or why it is needed. --Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this for? 

message: Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, I don't disagree that more encyclopedic information on the "impact or historical significance" of the GAC would be good, but contend that the article is useful and should be expanded on, not deleted.  As an aside, the GAC is a fairly simple concept once you understand the nature of managed code, assemblies, etc, so it will likely never be a huge article.
*It's insignificant informaion. WP:AFD then. --meatclerk 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you actually mean is it bears no direct significance to your personal life or work.  Anyway, the article fits none of the categories for which there is a general consensus on non-inclusion.  Moreover, the GAC is an important part of the .NET Framework, and there's both a category .NET framework and a WikiProject .NET.  If your problem with this article is that one article should suffice to cover Microsoft .NET, then do suggest the deletion of all other .NET articles except the main one, too, and the disbanding of the WikiProject.  Aragorn2 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article an Internet guide? 

message: Ok, I read this and I just can't seem to figure it out:Every assembly that is added to the GAC must be strongly named. The process of making an assembly "strongly named" can be quite painful in some situations. For example, if an assembly depends on another assembly that is not strongly named, it can not be registered in the GAC. In cases where the code of the 3rd party assembly is not in the programmer's propriety, transforming the assembly to be strongly named can in fact be impossible.
First - that doesn't seem to be the correct usage of propriety. Next: perhaps an explanation of why an assembly can be painful to be made strongly named. While I believe the intent is that the next sentence defines the "strongly named can be quite painful" sentence, it doesn't seem to do it well.  - however I grok the GAC so perhaps I'm biased. Just my $.02 208.88.67.138 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification or cleanup? 

message: I think the Example of Use section should be removed from this article. It is misleading for a number of reasons. First, it is written in the context of the Global Assembly Cache Viewer shell extension which is now obsolete. Second, it implies that the goal of the GAC is to get around the restriction of not being able to have two files with the same path in FAT32 by acting as a virtual file system. The GAC is not a virtual file system and its purpose is not to get around the filename restriction. It's meant as a global repository of assemblies available to all applications on the computer. It can be related to how system DLLs are installed in C:\Windows\system32. The GAC gets around having assemblies with the same name by using a complex set of subdirectories managed by the .Net framework and the utility gacutil.exe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.225.104 (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Use Section 

message: e.g. this one: http://www.mono-project.com/Assemblies_and_the_GAC --Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Mono? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Global Assembly Cache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130121161916/http://www.devsource.com/c/a/Techniques/Ten-Managed-Application-Pitfalls-that-Kill-Version-Compatibility/ to http://www.devsource.com/c/a/Techniques/Ten-Managed-Application-Pitfalls-that-Kill-Version-Compatibility/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified