There is another reason why this was never explored. The .NETCF is not a
true subset of the desktop .NET framework. There are UI controls, for
example, that don't exist on the desktop, but do on WinCE. One example is
the SIP. If you used this control in your application, it wouldn't run on
the desktop.
I suggest using the emulator, but taking advantage of the "Save emulator
state" mechanism. That way, the .NETCF won't be re-deployed every time.
This is about as fast as you can make the emulator go, but you'll be
running the .NETCF, everything will look appropriate, and what you see will
be exactly what you'll get on a pocketpc device.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--------------------
| From: "Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" <
[email protected]>
| References: <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<ujg#
[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: Developing without the Emulator
| Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:59:38 -0700
| Lines: 102
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
| X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
| Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework
| NNTP-Posting-Host: s2.instrument.client.aces.net 198.182.119.2
| Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework:32082
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework
|
| The .NET CF group is a *small* group. I'm sure it's just a matter of
| prioritizing and, given that no one really expects people to *want* to run
| final application on the desktop, there are other things for them to spend
| their time on. You know: make the run-time faster or add support for
| running the applications on the desktop? I know what I'd rather have them
| work on.
|
| Having said that, I think that you might be able to run your .NET
| application on the desktop and on the device without recompiling, if
you're
| very careful about what the application does, so maybe that's a partial
| solution.
|
| Paul T.
| P.S. Don't forget that I don't, personally, work for MS...
|
| | > Those are valid points.
| >
| > However, why not give the developer all three options for testing:
| >
| > Emulator
| > Actual Device
| > Windows Application
| >
| > Since the Compact Framework is a subset of the full Framework, it should
| run
| > as a windows app.
| > (even though it might look a little different)
| >
| > As I become more familiar with the Compact Framework, I start using the
| > methods I know will work and it doesn't become a problem.
| >
| > I would just prefer to write my code as a windows app and then test it
on
| > the emulator as I see fit.
| > It's faster for me and it kinda brakes up the monotony.
| >
| > Please consider something like this in a future version of Vis Studio.
| >
| > Drew
| >
| >
| > | > > You run the risk of using a method which doesn't exist in the Compact
| > > Framework or using it in a way which is unsupported in the Compact
| > > Framework. This might not be a problem at the end of the project, but
| it
| > > could be a huge headache, too. Further, you might find that the
| algorithm
| > > that you're using in your desktop code and which performs just fine
on a
| > > 200BizillaHertz PC is just too slow on the Pocket PC. That's the kind
| of
| > > thing that you wouldn't want to find out just at the end of the
project,
| > > when your data structures are all designed.
| > >
| > > I'd just use the emulator, if necessary, and the real device if at all
| > > possible...
| > >
| > > Paul T.
| > >
| > >
| > > | > > > I think I would prefer to develop my smart devices apps without even
| > using
| > > > the emualtor
| > > > or the actual device until the end of my development cycle. It's so
| > damn
| > > > slow waiting for it to deploy.
| > > >
| > > > When I built mobile Java applications, I would typically just
develop
| on
| > > the
| > > > desktop
| > > > until I was ready to deploy and then test it on the device. It
| > sometimes
| > > > looks a little different
| > > > on the device, but it's much faster for me to test.
| > > >
| > > > Could I do this with a smart device application?
| > > >
| > > > Would I have to have to seperate projects to do this?
| > > >
| > > > I understand that the GUI would look a little different as a Windows
| > > > Application, but
| > > > it doesn't matter in the beginning - I just want to get the code
| working
| > > as
| > > > fast as possible.
| > > >
| > > > Drew
| > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
|
