2.0/3.0 Compatibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Back
Top