"hatch" <hatche***@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:30d89464-ab9d-4d4f-b401-1fad56e142c8@c29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> i have an issue with .NET 2.0 compiler, that generates different
> interface assemblies than .NET 1.1 compiler. And this causes
> applications (compiled against 1.1 interfaces) to throw
> System.MissingMethodException. Recompiling application (no changes
> made) with 2.0 interfaces solves the problem. - But this still breaks
> binary compatibility, which should be maintained considering
> interfaces themselves were not changed.
>
>
> Ildasm output of interfaces compiled with .NET 1.1
>
> .property instance valuetype
> Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.WindowState
>        WindowState()
> {
>  .get instance valuetype Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.WindowState
> Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.IPortletRequest::get_WindowState()
> } // end of property IPortletRequest::WindowState
>
>
> Ildasm output of interfaces compiled with  .NET 2.0
>
> .method public hidebysig newslot specialname abstract virtual
>        instance valuetype
> [Marg.Planet.Interfaces]Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.WindowState
>        get_WindowState() cil managed
> {
> } // end of method IPortletRequest::get_WindowState
>
>
> The difference is in get_WindowState() method's signature...
>
> Note that Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.WindowState
> is enum in Marg.Planet.Interfaces.dll assembly
> public enum WindowState { ... }
>
> And is getter (with same name)
> in Marg.Planet.Interfaces.Portlet.dll assembly
> WindowState WindowState { get; }
>
>
> I realize this was a bad coding practice to begin with, but is there
> any solution to make it binary compatible?