Consume transport pack from dotnet/runtime

[ViktorHofer]

dotnet/runtime packages don't contain reference assemblies anymore. As
windowsdesktop distributes some of dotnet/runtime's reference assemblies
in their targeting pack, consuming a transport package from
dotnet/runtime which contains all the required assets (ref + lib + docs)

Removing stale properties and subscriptions as well.

cc @ericstj @Anipik

[dreddy-work]

Name of the transport package is little confusing to me. Should it be sounded like Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport instead of Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport ?

[ViktorHofer]

Name of the transport package is little confusing to me. Should it be sounded like Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport instead of Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport ?

We already deliver a transport package to aspnetcore with same naming schema: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Internal.Transport. If possible I would like to keep them consistent. It's a non shipping package anyway (it never appears on nuget.org).

[dreddy-work]

Name of the transport package is little confusing to me. Should it be sounded like Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport instead of Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport ?

We already deliver a transport package to aspnetcore with same naming schema: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Internal.Transport. If possible I would like to keep them consistent. It's a non shipping package anyway (it never appears on nuget.org).

We have winforms transport package with name Microsoft.Winforms.* that contains bits from winforms to Desktop repo . With this notion, name is telling me that it is a windowsdesktop transport package but in reality, its a runtime supporting/dependancy package for desktop?

[ViktorHofer]

We have winforms transport package with name Microsoft.Winforms.* that contains bits from winforms to Desktop repo . With this notion, name is telling me that it is a windowsdesktop transport package but in reality, its a runtime supporting/dependancy package for desktop?

In principle I agree with you but how important is naming here given that it's an internal package only and will never appear on any public feed? Also we would be trading consistency in dotnet/runtime in favor of consistency in dotnet/windowsdesktop.

[RussKie]

I agree with @dreddy-work on the name concern - we have a number of the same packages in dotnet/winforms, and I'd think we'd need to replace those with the same package. https:/dotnet/winforms/blob/5f5b89a28c8905b47d46a27ea78ed293fca25ac6/eng/Versions.props#L13-L40

Now it'd look rather strange if dotnet/winforms referenced Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport, but it'd look less strange and meaningful if it referenced Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport.
I'd argue that the chosen naming convention lacks "origin", and it'd be significantly better if it was something like Microsoft.[Internal|Private].Runtime.[AspNetCore|WindowsDesktop|etc.]. In fact it'd be even better if we aligned names of all dotnet transport packages.

[ViktorHofer]

I agree with @dreddy-work on the name concern - we have a number of the same packages in dotnet/winforms, and I'd think we'd need to replace those with the same package. https:/dotnet/winforms/blob/5f5b89a28c8905b47d46a27ea78ed293fca25ac6/eng/Versions.props#L13-L40

It's important that dotnet/windowsdesktop which composes the shared framework needs to use this transport package as otherwise implementation assemblies would be redistributed into the windowsdesktop targeting pack. For that reason, the transport package only contains the assemblies that are built in dotnet/runtime and are part of the targeting pack.

dotnet/winforms and dotnet/wpf could change to use the transport package for the overlapping set of assemblies but the transport's target is the windowsdesktop shared framework. It's purpose isn't to bundle together any assembly that windowsdesktop, winforms or wpf might need from dotnet/runtime.

In fact it'd be even better if we aligned names of all dotnet transport packages.

Apart from consistency and a decent amount of churn across the stack, it's unclear to me what the benefit of that would be for the customer? Not saying that we shouldn't do it but it requires a business justification. In addition to that, without establishing a policy and protection (i.e. on the publishing side of Arcade), such consistency will likely regress again in the future.

[Internal|Private].Runtime.[AspNetCore|WindowsDesktop|etc.].

@dougbu @wtgodbe do you share the same concern for aspnetcore? I would like to keep the transport package names in dotent/runtime consistent. So ideally if we change this one I would want to change the aspnetcore's transport package name.

Now it'd look rather strange if dotnet/winforms referenced Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport, but it'd look less strange and meaningful if it referenced Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport.
I'd argue that the chosen naming convention lacks "origin", and it'd be significantly better if it was something like Microsoft.[Internal|Private].Runtime.[AspNetCore|WindowsDesktop|etc.].

Works for me. My only concern is that we need to get this into windowsdesktop before we snap (tomorrow). As I'm out tomorrow I would like to agree on a name asap.

@dreddy-work @RussKie should we go with Microsoft.RuntimeForWindowsDesktop.Internal.Transport or Microsoft.Internal.Runtime.WindowsDesktop.Transport?

[RussKie]

I'd go with Microsoft.Internal.Runtime.WindowsDesktop.Transport, and later we could add Microsoft.Internal.Runtime.WindowsForms.Transport and Microsoft.Internal.Runtime.Wpf.Transport if necessary

[wtgodbe]

I'm a fan of having the transport packages follow a consistent naming scheme. Microsoft.Internal.Runtime.Aspnetcore.Transport works for me.

[ViktorHofer]

Awesome. Submitted dotnet/runtime#57504 to fix this.

@wtgodbe you will need to change the package name in the next update dependencies PR in aspnetcore that updates the dotnet/runtime bits. (More precisely the Versions.props property rename, Version.Details.xml dependency update and the PackageReference Include="" and Version="").

[dreddy-work]

@ViktorHofer , can you merge or rebase to resolve conflicts?

[ViktorHofer]

@ViktorHofer , can you merge or rebase to resolve conflicts?

Waiting to get the new package in first.

[ViktorHofer]

The PR is now ready. Would appreciate a review.