|
OK, this may be a somewhat dumb question but I haven't found a definitive answer yet so I thought I'd try here.
I currently have a client/server WinForms app developed using .NET 3.5 framework. So all my users have .NET 3.5 installed on their PCs along with the application.
I would like to install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine, basically since it's supposed to solve a lot of performance issues with VS2008. However, do I need to have all the users upgrade to .NET 3.5 SP1 as well? That will be a major effort that I don't want to do at this time. So if I'm required to re-deploy .NET 3.5 SP1 to all users in order to run an application developed using SP1, I'll hold off with upgrading my development machine, otherwise I'll press.
Thanks in advance... Steve
|
|
|
|
|
PSU Steve wrote: I haven't found a definitive answer yet
Short of just saying "yes it's required", isn't that up to you to answer? I mean you know what your app does, what it uses in the .NET framework, no one else does. So since Microsoft has documented SP1[^], isn't it up to you to figure that out rather than expecting to find a definitive answer from someone else?
|
|
|
|
|
I was really hoping for a little assistance as most people here at CP are helpful versus just sarcastic...
That said, I guess what I am really asking is this... If I (A) install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine to take advantage of the supposed VS2008 performance fixes, (B) recompile my application "as-is" (ie making no changes specific to anything in SP1), and (C) deploy the app to my users who still have the "basic" .NET 3.5 framework, will it work?
Thanks... Steve
|
|
|
|
|
From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed. When it does, exception will be thrown (missing function). I don't know how much of this is help, cause I can't prove it will work the same way everywhere.
But after my app crashed once, I ordered my client to download update and don't whine :P.
|
|
|
|
|
Ravadre wrote: From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed.
Are there any automated programs that can take an .exe and determine whether it references any functions that don't exist in particular versions of .net? To be sure, it would be possible for a program that references a function only found in a later .net version to work with earlier ones if the function is never actually executed, but outside of code specifically written to handle different versions of .net (e.g. try using the new version of a function and set a flag based upon whether it works; if it doesn't work, use the old one instead) I would think the list of functions referenced would correspond strongly to the list of functions required.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't heard of one, but I must say - I wasn't looking for one, so don't take this response as definite answer.
|
|
|
|
|
PSU Steve wrote: versus just sarcastic...
There was nothing sarcastic about my response, I was dead serious. So f*** off a**hole
Ok, look I might have been unfair........ to everyone you currently work with and anyone you might work with in the future. For all of those peoples sake you should look at this[^].
modified on Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
The definitive answer is "Maybe". No, I'm not kidding around.
You're going to have to recompile the app under SP1, then install it on a machine without SP1 on it and test it. It's that simple! It's the ONLY way you're going to get the DEFINITIVE answer.
"led mike" was correct in every way, only YOU can answer that question: "will your app work??" You're not going to know until YOU test it, and that testing is not limited to strictly functionality. The other question you have to answer is performance. Sure, the app may work, but does it do so with acceptable performance??
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: "led mike" was correct in every way
Holy frack! What's next, hell freezing over? 
I don't know if I can resist making that my sig. 
|
|
|
|
|
You could always extend this to
"led mike" providing correct solutions since 2006.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: "led mike" providing correct solutions since 2006.
Good grief has it been that long? Wow, I may have to consider retiring.
|
|
|
|
|
Did I stroke your ego a little too much there?
|
|
|
|
|
Sp1 contains two types of stuff.
1) New libraries (e.g. the entity framework).
Provided you don't go using these, it won't matter that your users don't have them. You will need to be very careful to make sure you don't accidentally use some new sp1 functionality that your users don't have.
2) CLR improvements. (e.g. various performance improvements to WPF loading times etc). It doesn't matter that your assembly is compiled against 3.5 SP1 on your PC, it will still work on a PC with just plain old 3.5, but you just won't see any of the improvements.
So in theory it should work fine, but as with anything in development, I wouldn't bet your life on it. The best way forward is probably to ensure you test thoroughly on a 3.5 pc without sp1 before deploying it to your users.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Is there implementation SiteLock interface for ActiveX on C#?
or C# and .NET is not good option to make ActiveX?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Dudes (Dudets),
I read this awesome article IDisposable: What Your Mother Never Told You About Resource Deallocation[^] and a bunch of other not so awesome ones.
However, I failed to find an answer to this question:
1. I got a base class - ObjectA that inherits from a UserControl.
2. ObjectA is then inherited from by ObjectB and tailored to particular uses elsewhere in the code. (ObjectB is not inherited from)
3. There are many different ObjectB implementations (ObjectB1....10) all of which add EventHandlers for ObjectA events and declare their own distinct events that are handled by other objects.
4. Now all ObjectBx objects are stored in a collection and then disposed off like so:
For Each oA as ObjectA in CollectionOfObjectBx
oA.Dispose
Next
5. Each ObjectBx overloads Dispose method and uses it to Remove EventHandlers.
However, these Dispose overloads never get called because instances of the ObjectBx are disposed via the base class that is not aware of anything going on inside inherited objects.
But does it matter? Want GC eventually kill off all handlers since the objects themselves are dead?
I would greatly appreciate if anyone could shed some light on this.
Regards
Alex
"All your base are belong to us..."
- Mr. Cats (2110 A.D.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, you need to override and not overload. all dispose methods should be called from the leaf type to the top. I think that you should clean up after your self when creating objects that are disposable. in large objects you should also set values to null explicitly to free the memory faster. The next code calls all methods when disposing:
///
/// The main entry point for the application.
///
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
//This code should go in the main
//ObjectB1 inherits from ObjectB which innhertis from ObjectA
ObjectB1 b1 = new ObjectB1();
//Calling the dispose will call the dispose of ObjectB1
//within the dispose of ObjectB1 there is a call to the base dispose.
b1.Dispose();
}
public partial class ObjectA : UserControl
{
public ObjectA()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void ObjectA_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
}
public class ObjectB : ObjectA
{
public event EventHandler ObjectBEvent;
public ObjectB()
{
this.MouseClick += new MouseEventHandler(ObjectB_MouseClick);
}
void ObjectB_MouseClick(object sender, MouseEventArgs e)
{
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
base.Dispose(disposing);
MessageBox.Show("Dispose : ObjectB");
ObjectBEvent = null;
}
protected virtual void OnObjectBEvent(EventArgs e)
{
if (ObjectBEvent != null)
{
ObjectBEvent(this, e);
}
}
}
public class ObjectB1 : ObjectB
{
public event EventHandler ObjectB1Event;
public ObjectB1()
{
this.MouseClick += new MouseEventHandler(ObjectB1_MouseClick);
}
void ObjectB1_MouseClick(object sender, MouseEventArgs e)
{
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
base.Dispose(disposing);
MessageBox.Show("Dispose : ObjectB1");
ObjectB1Event = null;
}
protected virtual void OnObjectB1Event(EventArgs e)
{
if (ObjectB1Event != null)
{
ObjectB1Event(this, e);
}
}
}
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Natza,
Thx for taking the time to answer my post. Unfortunately your solution doesn't help.
You are disposing ObjectB1 which would have worked if not for the fact that the generic dispose proc that sits in Main only knows of ObjectA and has no idea that ObjectA was inherited from.
In a word you are suggesting Top Down Dispose method calls.
But I need the Dispose methods to be called Down to Top first e.i. the last inheritor ObjectBx needs to be notified when the base class is being disposed. Once that's accomplished i can go down the inheritance tree and kill off my handlers.
Lastly, there is a twist. A few of ObejectBx's events are handled by ObjectC that is only destroyed on app shutdown.
Hence, there is a live reference remaining in memory to all ObjectBx events even after they are disposed.
"All your base are belong to us..."
- The Nameless One (2110 A.D.)
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is a workaround for this i'll post more in a bit.
"All your base are belong to us..."
- The Nameless One (2110 A.D.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I dont know whether I understand what you are trying to do.
Note that ObjectB1 dispose is called first even when using:
ObjectA a = new ObljectB1();
a.Dispose();
And it does not matter whether they know each other or not.
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Feature wrote: Each ObjectBx overloads Dispose method and uses it to Remove EventHandlers.
How do you overload Dispose? I'm guessing you have public non-virtual Dispose in your base class and then methods with the same signature in all the derived classes?
If that's the case, you need to make the method that does the disposal virtual, and override it in the derived classes. That way, the Dispose calls will go the actual (runtime) types - in your case, ObjectBxs.
|
|
|
|
|
hi
I want to create asp.net
website using CMS
cms for example umbraco or DotNetNuke
database is mysql
.net 2008 express edition
IIS 5.1
can u guide me how i can start building it
i have tried with dotnetnuke and umbraco but both r problematic with mysql
and also dificult to configure
if u know any other CMS pls let me know but supportable to mysql,.net2008 express, IIS5.1
Ravie Busie
Coding is my birth-right and bugs are part of feature my code has!
|
|
|
|
|
This is a crosspost.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Come one Pete, give the guy a break. He wants to create ASP.NET. That would be good for all of use right?
[typo-caused-by-nervous-finger-energy] As I read that now I can only imagine what sort of quips you might use on that.
|
|
|
|
|
RaviBusie wrote: can u guide me
Yes, use english not text speak. If you can't bother to type the extra keys to spell "you" then most of us here that have a clue will not bother to help you.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
When i installed Rational clearcasetool and restarted system..and when im trying to build my vc++ application in VS 2005 im able to see the below error..
error result returned from 'cl.exe'.
Please help me out..
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
