<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Jonathan's Pancheria: Tag GAC</title>
    <link>http://blog.dotbot.net/articles/tag/gac?tag=gac</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>dotcom Thousandaire</description>
    <item>
      <title>NACK the GAC</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;NACK&lt;/span&gt; the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GAC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;Chris Sells goes over the very few reasons why the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GAC&lt;/span&gt; should be employed.  We&amp;#8217;ve run into most of the issues here at Outtask:&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The one where I can only come up with &lt;A HREF="http://www.sellsbrothers.com/spout/default.aspx?content=archive.htm#Avoid_the_GAC"&gt;two reasons for using the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GAC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/A&gt;, the first being very difficult to pull off correctly and the second to happen more and more rarely as we move to &lt;span class="caps"&gt;SOA&lt;/span&gt; and .NET.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;This post feels very much like &lt;A href="http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind9709A&amp;amp;L=DCOM&amp;amp;P=R8788&amp;amp;I=-3"&gt;&amp;#8220;Why do we still need duals?&amp;#8221;&lt;/A&gt; so if you&amp;#8217;ve got a reason for using the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;GAC&lt;/span&gt; that I didn&amp;#8217;t list, by all means, let me know!&lt;/P&gt; &lt;a title="Avoid the GAC (and Check My Reasoning)" href="http://www.sellsbrothers.com/news/showTopic.aspx?ixTopic=1199"&gt;[Marquee de Sells: Chris&amp;#8217;s insight outlet]&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;This smells to &lt;i&gt;me&lt;/i&gt; like more MS technology that&amp;#8217;s been hyped to be the greatest thing since sliced bread but really only solves a small set of problems.  Sort of like &lt;span class="caps"&gt;MTS&lt;/span&gt;/COM+.  Other than its support for really good distributed transaction processing with no coding, &lt;span class="caps"&gt;MTS&lt;/span&gt;/COM+ buys you nothing except giving you a toolkit for solving a bunch of thorny &lt;span class="caps"&gt;COM&lt;/span&gt; thread isolation/system reliability problems that are really Microsoft design problems you shouldn&amp;#8217;t have had to care about to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;Having said that, the built-in distributed transaction handling &lt;b&gt;really is nice&lt;/b&gt;.  You can get really far with it before you have to branch out and write any sort of custom distributed transaction code.  But that is only a fraction of what MS was promising in 1998-1999 that &lt;span class="caps"&gt;COM&lt;/span&gt;+ was going to do for you.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:5991e10e-f544-4c68-8f91-eb3296fc48e1</guid>
      <author>Jonathan Altman</author>
      <link>http://blog.dotbot.net/articles/2004/03/11/nack-the-gac</link>
      <category>technical</category>
      <category>.Net</category>
      <category>GAC</category>
      <category>C</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

