|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2.0/3.0 CompatibilityAre there any compatibility issues to be concerned about if developers have
3.0 installed, but the production environment only has 2.0? As long as no 3.0 specific code is used I wouldn't think there's anything to worry about, especially since the 3.0 assemblies are mostly additions. And I've done some testing of my own and haven't run into any problems. But still, I gotta ask. Thanks. John Hi John,
The 3.0 assemblies aren't mostly additions, they are only additions, so you shouldn't have any problems running 2.0 code on a machine without 3.0. Learn .NET Framework 3.0 http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa663309.aspx ..NET Framework 3.0 Versioning and Deployment Q&A http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa663314.aspx The last link should answer the important questions for you :) Show quote "John" <revelation@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:u0LWhbUKHHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Are there any compatibility issues to be concerned about if developers > have 3.0 installed, but the production environment only has 2.0? As long > as no 3.0 specific code is used I wouldn't think there's anything to worry > about, especially since the 3.0 assemblies are mostly additions. And I've > done some testing of my own and haven't run into any problems. But still, > I gotta ask. Thanks. > > John > Hello John,
I agree with Dave. .NET framework 3.0 is not concentrating on provide new class libraries but provide three new programming services, WPF, WCF and WWF. As long as your application is developed against .NET framework 2.0 and haven't used any 3.0 specific features, you do not need to worry about the .net 3.0 framework on deployment machine. Sincerely, Steven Cheng Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Steven Cheng[MSFT] <stch***@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I agree with Dave. .NET framework 3.0 is not concentrating on provide new I would say that WPF, WCF and WWF *are* new class libraries. What .NET > class libraries but provide three new programming services, WPF, WCF and > WWF. 3.0 doesn't do is provide new implementations of *existing* class libraries. -- Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:39:49 -0000, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
> Steven Cheng[MSFT] <stch***@online.microsoft.com> wrote: Just goes to show the collosal confusion MSFT caused when they changed it>> I agree with Dave. .NET framework 3.0 is not concentrating on provide new >> class libraries but provide three new programming services, WPF, WCF and >> WWF. > > I would say that WPF, WCF and WWF *are* new class libraries. What .NET > 3.0 doesn't do is provide new implementations of *existing* class > libraries. from 2 to 3. If they'd done what they did with v.1.0 and v1.1. I dare say there wouldn't be as much confusion Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. You've confirmed what I thought.
Actually I thought there might be some updates, but I see now it's all just additions. I can now make a more convincing argument to at least get developers looking at the new stuff without VPC, dual-boots or any other clunkiness. Thanks again. Rad: I tend to agree. This should have been a 2.1, not a 3.0 since it is simply additions and not a total re-write. But that's what happens when Marketing folks get involved in the naming and versioning. :) John Show quote "Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1wod2hdjsfa4o$.dlg@thinkersroom.com... > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:39:49 -0000, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: > >> Steven Cheng[MSFT] <stch***@online.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I agree with Dave. .NET framework 3.0 is not concentrating on provide >>> new >>> class libraries but provide three new programming services, WPF, WCF and >>> WWF. >> >> I would say that WPF, WCF and WWF *are* new class libraries. What .NET >> 3.0 doesn't do is provide new implementations of *existing* class >> libraries. > > Just goes to show the collosal confusion MSFT caused when they changed it > from 2 to 3. If they'd done what they did with v.1.0 and v1.1. I dare say > there wouldn't be as much confusion > > -- > Bits.Bytes > http://bytes.thinkersroom.com  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics