|
An application built in 1.1 must have the 1.1 framework installed on the machine that is running the application. 2.0 framework will not work for applications built in 1.1 or vice versa.
Mike Lasseter
|
|
|
|
|
Mike,
Thank you for the reply. So, if I have customers with both 2.0 and 1.1, then I need to provide separate versions of the application, right? There is no backward compatibility with .Net?
From the standpoint of application development, is there a way for me to have both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my PC and switch between them when doing builds?
Thanks, 
Vic
|
|
|
|
|
If you built the application using 1.1 then the users need the 1.1 framework on thier machine. If you built the application using 2.0 then the users need the 2.0 framework on thier machine. I would have your users install the correct verion of the framework on their machine rather than you having to build the software with each compiler.
Yes you can have both VS 2003 and VS 2005 installed on the same machine.
Mike Lasseter
|
|
|
|
|
Mike,
Thanks again for the reply.
I'm still confused though - It sounds like you are saying that VS2005 requires the 2.0 framework and VS2003 requires the 1.1 framework. Is there some interdependence?
Can my users have both 2.0 framework and 1.1 framework installed? If the user needs the 2.0 framework for some other application, then they will not be able to run my application without having both installed.
Thanks again,
Vic
|
|
|
|
|
Victor CM wrote: It sounds like you are saying that VS2005 requires the 2.0 framework and VS2003 requires the 1.1 framework.
This is exactly what I am saying. There is no backward compatibility.
Victor CM wrote: Can my users have both 2.0 framework and 1.1 framework installed?
Yes
Victor CM wrote: If the user needs the 2.0 framework for some other application, then they will not be able to run my application without having both installed.
If you built your application using the 1.1 framework then this is correct.
Mike Lasseter
|
|
|
|
|
Mike,
Thanks for being patient with me. I understand it now!
Vic
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone had any success running a .NET 2.0 application on a Citrix server?
When I try to run any 2.0 WinForm application, I get an incomprehensible error message. I've heard that Citrix doesn't currently offer support for the 2.0 framework, but I'm hopoing someone has found a work-around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have wold file with fname , lname & status
and i have app that i will fill all this data (fname , lname & status )
and send this data as parameter to MSWord and print it
u can see MSWord file in
http://www.shoppinp.com/test.doc
and the win app in this file
http://www.shoppinp.com/test.gif
Palestine
|
|
|
|
|
when i search on the internet i see this code
try
Dim oWordApp
Dim oWordDoc
Set oWordApp = CreateObject("Word.Application")
If oWordApp Is Nothing Then
MsgBox "Couldn't start Word."
Else
oWordApp.visible =true
' Open a new document
Set oDoc = oWordApp.Documents.Add("c:\temp\mytemplate.dot")
with oDoc
'fill the word bookmarks with the corresponding text
.Bookmarks("mybookmark1").Range.Text = "test1"
.Bookmarks("mybookmark2").Range.Text = "test2"
.Bookmarks("mybookmark3").Range.Text = "test3"
end with
End If
but what is Bookmarks("mybookmark1").Range.Text ???
Palestine
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Just before I go and reinvent the wheel, I wanted to know if there's such a collection in the .NET Framework 2.0 that could be used as some kind of "Circular list", that is, everytime I want to get a value from it, I get the next item in the list, looping back at the beginning when reaching the end.
Thank you
Luc Morin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I don't think there is one but I can give you a hint:
If you don't want to implement it completely yourself you can inherit from ArrayList and just overwrite GetEnumerator. This way you just have to implement your own IEnumerator.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry this isn't really much of a question as it is a political thing, but I didn't want to put it in the Soapbox in fear of trolls.
Anyone else disappointed by the ".NET 3.0" name for WinFX?
http://www.petitiononline.com/winfx/petition.html[^]
I've listed several reasons here, so read up.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow 8 signatures so far... 
|
|
|
|
|
28 now 
Keep spreading the word!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow... I'm underwhelmed. 28 out of how many thousands using the .NET Framework??
Kind of reminds me about the legions of people who pitched a bitch about Microsoft finally ending support for VB6...
-- modified at 15:18 Thursday 10th August, 2006
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
I just started this last night at midnight.
|
|
|
|
|
Why the "big deal"? They could call it ".NET DogPile 1.0" for all I care. It still makes me money when I write code in it...
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't care then don't comment.
I somehow doubt you've even read the petition.
Besides, with all the thousands of .NET programmers out there and the 3.2 million CP users, only 3 new threads since yesterday night on these forums. Is that a bad sign? 
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. I find all 8 points on your petition rather petty...
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the eighth point is not my point, it's a reiteration of Microsoft's point. Petty? Yes, the eighth one is indeed.
Again I don't think you've read it properly. Not that I expect someone who doesn't care to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
You haven't read my post properly. I said ALL 8 points of your petition are rather petty, no just point #8.
And yes, I have read your petition properly. I just don't see what the "big deal" is... Other than "you don't like the verison number".
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
And you never will see if you keep trivializing it for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER!
After reading your petition about a dozen times, I still fail to see why this is such a huge deal.
For instance. Let's take your point #5. "Mangling the .NET framework with Win32 specific API breaks that, isolating the entire framework to Windows".
Apparently you haven't noticed that this has always been true, even since version 1.0 of the Framework. The CLR and the Base Class Library, like System, System.Security, System.Runtime, System.Reflection, ..., is still intact and is NOT Windows specific, and therefore portable to other platforms, such as Linux.
Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific!
Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER!
Uhh, no? I'm complaining about two technologies being merged into one, disrupting one's progress. I cite the version numbers because the messed up version numbers is a very good indication of the consequences to come. If it's as insignificant a matter as you say, they wouldn't have made the change in the first place.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific!
What they didn't do in these cases is release a new API under the same name just one year later. Windows Forms being under the System namespace is a bit unfortunate, and it is the only reason people criticize Mono for being incomplete. Alas, because it's a small portion of the .NET framework, it works. Not so with .NET 3.0, especially when they start adding more breaking CLR changes to it in the future.
There's the risk that these will depend on the past Windows-specific additions, and the version number "3.5" for the LinQ release is a good example. If the 2.0 implementation is in one directory, 3.0 another but depending on 2.0, does 3.5 depend on 3.0? See how it starts breaking down?
Point being: the guts of .NET 2.0 is portable, none of .NET 3.0 is portable, so what guarantee is there that .NET 3.5 onward will be portable at all?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Last time I checked, the only thing Mono added to the BCL was an additional encryption algorithm.
-- modified at 19:41 Thursday 10th August, 2006
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
