|
Is it possible to compile against .Net 2.0 and 2.1 framework versions in VS 2008?
I have the Advanced Compiler Settings screen open and am looking at the framework versions listed. 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 are listed. The problem is that I need to compile apps under 2.0 and 2.1. Is this possible?
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
There's such thing a .NET Framework 2.1. The valid versions are:
1.0 and 1.0 SP1, SP2, and SP3
1.1 and 1.1 SP1
2.0 and 2.0 SP1 and SP2
3.0 and 3.0 SP1 and SP2
3.5 and 3.5 SP1
|
|
|
|
|
My bad. For short hand at work, we call 2.0 SP1 simply 2.1.
Is it possible in VS 2008 to target 2.0 and 2.0 SP 1 specifically during compile time?
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
No, you can only target a specific version, not a specific service pack.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigh. I was afraid that would be the answer.
Great feature in VS2008, but should more power to target a specific framework version (down to the SP level).
We still have to support Win98, meaning 2.0.
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that .NET versioning is even included in Visual Studio 2008 should be good enough (unfortunately no 1.1 support though). What do you want specifically from the different service packs? Nothing really new is introduced, just fixed. If you want to target a particular service pack of the .NET framework, then make it a requirement of the program.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
In our organization, it is simply not possible to upgrade all clients mainly because we have *alot* of machinery that is controlled via apps originally created for DOS/Win98; and there are compatibility issues with newer versions of Windows. We could upgrade machinery which in turn would support a newer Windows version, but that costs are entirely to high for something that currently works fine esp. in a recessionary period.
We have several apps that we maintain and use for inventory control etc. In Win98, only 2.0 is supported. In WinXP+, we can support anything but tend to use 2.1 so that the same source files (95% of the time at least) can be used in compiling against 2.0 and 2.1. Currently we duplicate the .sln and .vbproj files to point at different compiled versions of referenced .dlls (2.0 vs 2.1).
It is nice that VS2008 allows you to target a framework, but in our scenario, it doesn't really help. Targeting a framework version, at least to me, would allow a developer to target a specific framework version regardless if it's the base version or a SP version; not just what ever version happens to be the latest.
In a perfect world, we would all run 3.5 and upgrade our OSs at M$s will......... but that perfect place doesn't exist here.
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
kissdznuts wrote: In a perfect world, we would all run 3.5 and upgrade our OSs at M$s will......... but that perfect place doesn't exist here.
Agreed, Microsoft did it's job too well. People clinging to their old OS-es like there was no alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
What version of Visual Studio do you use to compile against 2.1?
Do you actually distribute a version with 2.0-framework libraries *and* a version with the 2.1-framework libraries?
kissdznuts wrote: We still have to support Win98, meaning 2.0.
I'm using VS2008, Windows XP SP3. Just compiled a form against the 2.0 framework, without problems. I didn't test it under 2.0 SP1 though.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: What version of Visual Studio do you use to compile against 2.1?
Currently using VS 2005 for compiling against both. I have 2 virtual machine environments setup so that I can compile against 2.0 and another for the 2.1 framework library.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Do you actually distribute a version with 2.0-framework libraries *and* a version with the 2.1-framework libraries?
Two different library versions get deployed. Win98 gets the 2.0 librarys, while everyone else gets 2.1. If the machine isn't running Win98, they the client has WinXP or higher.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I'm using VS2008, Windows XP SP3. Just compiled a form against the 2.0 framework, without problems. I didn't test it under 2.0 SP1 though.
Not sure I'm following you here. Are you saying you compiled a win form app targeting the 2.0 framework, and the app worked in Win98? I thought by default VS2008 installs 2.0 SP1?
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
kissdznuts wrote: I have 2 virtual machine environments setup so that I can compile against 2.0 and another for the 2.1 framework library.
So you redistribute the framework-libraries with the installer?
kissdznuts wrote: Are you saying you compiled a win form app targeting the 2.0 framework, and the app worked in Win98?
I'm saying that there is no way to target 2.1 specific. One targets 2.0, 3.0 or 3.5. Microsoft only provides Redistributable Packages for those versions of the framework. You'll have to traverse the registry to find out wether SP1 is installed (or any security-updates for .NET, in case those DLL-versions are important to you)
Take a look at the version-list;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework_version_list
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So you redistribute the framework-libraries with the installer?
Kinda - we have a custom app that is similar to the click once. We have an exe that starts prior to any other apps, determines what updates need applied and installs them (meaning frameworks, windows installer, other 3rd party software), and then runs the appropriate program (determine by command line sent in).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm saying that there is no way to target 2.1 specific. One targets 2.0, 3.0 or 3.5. Microsoft only provides Redistributable Packages for those versions of the framework. You'll have to traverse the registry to find out wether SP1 is installed (or any security-updates for .NET, in case those DLL-versions are important to you)
Right, that's what Guffa was stating earlier. Basically, the 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 points to the highest installed version of each.
I check the Net Framework Setup\NDP\v2.0\SP key or system.environment.version
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
kissdznuts wrote: Basically, the 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 points to the highest installed version of each.
Someone who has 2.0 installed might not have version 1.1 of the framework, so it doesn't point to the "highest installed version".
It simply points to the version of the Framework, regardless of (security) updates and/or service packs.
kissdznuts wrote: we have a custom app that is similar to the click once
How does it handle the differences now? Does it update an XP installation if SP1 for .NET 2.0 is not installed? If so, do you *overwrite* the old libraries, or do you *add* the new versions to the GAC?
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Someone who has 2.0 installed might not have version 1.1 of the framework, so it doesn't point to the "highest installed version".
It simply points to the version of the Framework, regardless of (security) updates and/or service packs.
You may have misconstrued what I was explaining. In VS 2008, when you do a target framework, there are 3 options listed: 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 frameworks.
If you have 2.0 installed, 2.0 SP 1, and 2.0 SP2 installed and you target 2.0 in VS2008, it compiles with 2.0 SP2. Same with 3.0 and 3.5.
The highest installed version of *each* framework when doing a targeted framework.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: How does it handle the differences now? Does it update an XP installation if SP1 for .NET 2.0 is not installed? If so, do you *overwrite* the old libraries, or do you *add* the new versions to the GAC?
We have a few assemblies that rely on interop, so all files are copied into each program's directory on the client from a shared directory. If the client = Win98 it copies down the 2.0 versions; if XP or higher it copies down the 2.1 versions.
Any suggestions, ideas, or 'constructive criticism' are always welcome.
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people." - Mr. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
I have A TableAdapter and wana To assign
Null value To It's Parameter
I use Dbnull.value But I cant
|
|
|
|
|
Without seeing the code that's having the problem and the error messages, it's pretty much impossible to tell you what you're doing wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
I have this code in as Procedure in SqlServer
alter PROC Aut.SpGetArshive(@userId Int,@SecID bigint)
AS
BEGIN
SELECT *,str(isnull(a.Row,0))+' '+a.Title+ ' ('+a.Zonkan+')' AS des FROM aut.Archive a
WHERE (a.UserId IS NULL AND a.SecId=@secId) OR (a.SecId IS NULL AND a.UserId=@userId)
END
and have this table adapter in vb.net 2005 dataset
SpGetArshiveTableAdapter.Fill(Me.Ds.SpGetArshive, UserID, SecID)
and I wana pass null value to userId but Icant
I Use
SpGetArshiveTableAdapter.Fill(Me.Ds.SpGetArshive, dbnull.value, SecID)
or
SpGetArshiveTableAdapter.Fill(Me.Ds.SpGetArshive, nothing, SecID)
but there is Error
tanx
|
|
|
|
|
|
tanx
I changed my procedure .
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a newbie with VS 2005.
I'm porting an app from VB6 to VB.NET, writing it from scratch.
I created a multiline text control and it works fine.
If i fill the control with the content from a string (like "txt_control.text = string") I'm not able to add text anymore. The only edit function that works is the delete and backspace key.
Any hint?
marco
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
Change the max length of the text box and try.
Thanks
Mitesh
~Khatri Mitesh
khatrimitesh@hotmail.com
Bikaner (Rajasthan)
INDIA
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much!
It worked!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All
I have a stored proc in SQL which I call using VBA from a workbook. Although the App claims to have made the call successfully, it actually only gets to about 80% through the proc. When I run the proc manually, it works fine.
The proc does take a long time to run, so I'm thinking that it may be some crazy timeout that does not get noticed, or is ignored by VB when the ConnectionTimout and CommandTimeout properties are set to 0.
I'm using ADODB.Connection.
Does anybody have any idea's on this? I'm completely stumped. 
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
The ConnectionTimeout property only describes how long the Connection object will wait for the connection request to open, not how long a connection will last.
The CommandTimeout proerty describes how long to wait for a request to complete. The default is 30 seconds. Now, there are TWO CommandTimeout's. One on the Connection object, and another on the Command object. Use the one on the Command object to extend the length of time to wait for a request to complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats great. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
