Strong name signing question!

[DBC User]

Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have. My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???

Thanks in advance

[Bruce Wood]

DBC User wrote:

Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have. My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???

So, I assume that the third-party controls are not themselves signed by
the vendor?

[DBC User]

Yes sir, they are not signed by 3rd party. It is infragistics controls.
Bruce Wood wrote:

DBC User wrote:

Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have. My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???

So, I assume that the third-party controls are not themselves signed by
the vendor?

[John B]

DBC User wrote:

Bruce Wood wrote:

>DBC User wrote:

>>Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have. My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???

So, I assume that the third-party controls are not themselves signed by
the vendor?

Yes sir, they are not signed by 3rd party. It is infragistics controls.

Infragistics controls are signed. (presuming you mean the netadvantage
suite).

Please dont top post either, it makes it hard to follow the conversation.

JB

[DBC User]

Thanks John. What do you mean top post?
John B wrote:

DBC User wrote:

Bruce Wood wrote:

DBC User wrote:
Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have. My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???
So, I assume that the third-party controls are not themselves signed by
the vendor?

Yes sir, they are not signed by 3rd party. It is infragistics controls.

Infragistics controls are signed. (presuming you mean the netadvantage
suite).

Please dont top post either, it makes it hard to follow the conversation.

JB

[Steve Barnett]

Some people put replies to messages at the top of the post (Top Post) and
some people put replies at the bottom of the post (Bottom Post).

People who Top Post typically do so to ensure that the latest reply is
quickly visible without scrolling. People who Bottom Post do so to ensure
that the 'story' flows, much like a book or a news paper.

It's a personal preference which end of the post you add to, but some people
have strong feelings on the matter and occasionally make those feelings
known in a post. The debate as to what is right and wrong has been fought
out many times in many newsgroups. I've never seen a definitive answer (nor
do I have one - I tend to follow what other posters have done in the
specific post I am responding to).

HTH
Steve

"DBC User" <db*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m79g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...

Thanks John. What do you mean top post?
John B wrote:

>DBC User wrote:

Bruce Wood wrote:
DBC User wrote:
Hi All,

Someone shed some light in to this strong name signing issue I have.
My
assembly uses a 3rd party controls so I end up distributing their
dlls
along with my assembly. I put this app in the network and to make app
run from network I need to sign with strong name.

But all the document I read, it says, if you have an assembly that is
not strong name signed I will not able to sign my assembly. How can I
sign my assembly without signing the 3rd party controls???
So, I assume that the third-party controls are not themselves signed
by
the vendor?

Yes sir, they are not signed by 3rd party. It is infragistics

controls.
Infragistics controls are signed. (presuming you mean the netadvantage
suite).

Please dont top post either, it makes it hard to follow the conversation.

JB

Some people put replies to messages at the top of the post (Top Post) and
some people put replies at the bottom of the post (Bottom Post).

People who Top Post typically do so to ensure that the latest reply is
quickly visible without scrolling. People who Bottom Post do so to ensure
that the 'story' flows, much like a book or a news paper.

It's a personal preference which end of the post you add to, but some people
have strong feelings on the matter and occasionally make those feelings
known in a post. The debate as to what is right and wrong has been fought
out many times in many newsgroups. I've never seen a definitive answer (nor
do I have one - I tend to follow what other posters have done in the
specific post I am responding to).

HTH
Steve

[DBC User]

Thanks Steve.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Steve Barnett <no****@nodomain.comwrote:

... known in a post. The debate as to what is right and wrong has been fought
out many times in many newsgroups. I've never seen a definitive answer (nor
do I have one - I tend to follow what other posters have done in the
specific post I am responding to).

In general, it is considered proper to bottom post in USENET. There are
plenty of USENET ettiquette sites to be found to support this. Many
"Microsofters" have bucked the trend because of their chosen client's [outlook
express] inability to handle text properly to bottom post (without an add-in).

In fact, most people feel the same way about email and that bottom posting is
appropriate. It is plain painful to try and follow a long string of responses
in an email where everybody has top posted as is the case for most exchange
uses. It is quite unfortunate that Microsoft developed their product against
the trend to begin with, as their industry dominance has made for a lot of
people who buck the trend, and enough so that they are no long a minority [but
that doesn't make it right]. It isn't so different to other things in life
.... you better learn Spanish because so many of the minority coming here
refuses to learn English ... and soon they will be the majority.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Bruce Wood]

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In general, it is considered proper to bottom post in USENET. There are
plenty of USENET ettiquette sites to be found to support this.

Historically in THIS newsgroup
(microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp) we have avoided letting this
petty debate sidetrack perfectly legitimate threads (like this one). I,
for one, would be much happier if the few people who have "got
religion" on this topic would just let it rest and instead stay on
topic. Top posting is not nearly so annoying as polluting an otherwise
interesting conversations with a long string of posts about top /
bottom posting. They always start the same way, too: "Please don't top
post."

Aargh! Show a little self restraint, please! If it's really that big a
deal, start a new thread on it and duke it out there!

Now... what were we saying about Infragistics and strong naming?

[Bruce Wood]

John B wrote:

Infragistics controls are signed. (presuming you mean the netadvantage suite).

I don't directly use Infragistics controls, but assuming that John is
right and they are signed, what this means is that they don't have to
be signed by _you_. It's enough that they be signed by _somebody_.

One way to load assemblies off an intranet is that they be signed by
someone, and then you use the .NET security utilities to indicate that
that signature is "trusted". In this case, it sounds to me as though
you would have to indicate that there are two "trusted" signatures:
yours and that of Infragistics.

I'm not up on all of this stuff... it's on my list of things to
investigate this month or next month, because we're having some minor
problems that may be solved by strong naming. That's why I'm so
interested in this discussion.

Anyone else out there know how you would deploy a trusted app on an
intranet where some assemblies are locally signed and others are signed
by third parties?

[DBC User]

Bruce Wood wrote:

John B wrote:

Infragistics controls are signed. (presuming you mean the netadvantage suite).

I don't directly use Infragistics controls, but assuming that John is
right and they are signed, what this means is that they don't have to
be signed by _you_. It's enough that they be signed by _somebody_.

One way to load assemblies off an intranet is that they be signed by
someone, and then you use the .NET security utilities to indicate that
that signature is "trusted". In this case, it sounds to me as though
you would have to indicate that there are two "trusted" signatures:
yours and that of Infragistics.

I'm not up on all of this stuff... it's on my list of things to
investigate this month or next month, because we're having some minor
problems that may be solved by strong naming. That's why I'm so
interested in this discussion.

Anyone else out there know how you would deploy a trusted app on an
intranet where some assemblies are locally signed and others are signed
by third parties?

I wonder why no one has faced this problem?