net 3 replaces net 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kOOk
  • Start date Start date
K

kOOk

i saw a recent post that said .net framework 3 also contains 2? how about
1? i've searched the documentation and google groups and can't find the
answer.

TIA
 
..NET 2.0 "replaced" 1.1. You can still run a 1.1 application and a 2.0
application on the same computer; but nothing from 1.1 is used by 2.0. 3.0
simply adds some classes to the existing set of classes that 2.0 contains.
 
Peter Ritchie said:
.NET 2.0 "replaced" 1.1. You can still run a 1.1 application and a 2.0
application on the same computer; but nothing from 1.1 is used by 2.0.
3.0
simply adds some classes to the existing set of classes that 2.0 contains.
Click to expand...


well, i have one app that specifically requires .NET 1.1

it won't work with .NET 2 i guess my question is do i still need to
install 1.1 if i'm installing .NET 3
 
kOOk said:
well, i have one app that specifically requires .NET 1.1

it won't work with .NET 2 i guess my question is do i still need to
install 1.1 if i'm installing .NET 3
Click to expand...
Yes, you still need to install 1.1.
v3 is 2 with some added classes to support Vista.
 
Peter,

Are you sure of that?

In my idea would 2.0 replace completely version 1.x the problem is that
there are some bugs in that area or better no backward compatiblity of old
bugs was concerned in.

Maybe is that the reason that I get now on bug reports to much messages in
my eyes that say that they cannot be resolved because of backward
compatibility.

Cor
 
Hi Cor,

Cor Ligthert said:
Peter,

Are you sure of that?
Click to expand...

Peter is correct. If an app is compiled for 1.1, and you are a 'user' of
that app, then you have to keep 1.1 installed on your machine. If you are
the 'author/programmer' of that app, on the other hand, you can install a
newer version of visual studio, recompile, and then consume .net 2.0 or .net
3.0 (which is the addition of a slew of classes to .net 2.0). In that case,
the new DLL you create would not need .net 1.1.
In my idea would 2.0 replace completely version 1.x the problem is that
there are some bugs in that area or better no backward compatiblity of old
bugs was concerned in.
Click to expand...

I think you are asking why some issues were not 'addressed' when 2.0 was
released. The reason being that those issues are nearly all involved in
"tradeoffs in behavior."

In other words, a class could behave in mechanism (1) or mechanism (2).
Mechanism (1) was chosen and has side effect (x). People who don't like
side effect (x) would prefer that MS had chosen mechanism (2). However,
other developers who don't experience side effect (x) or don't care about it
have written code that depends on Mechanism (1). Therefore, switching to
Mechanism (2) in the 2.0 version of the framework would break backwards
compatibility.

There are always tradeoffs. That is life. I think the basic premise goes
something like this: You are always free to write a new class that
implements Mechanism (2) and make it available as part of a third-party
library. MS had to pick one. Picking two is bad.
Maybe is that the reason that I get now on bug reports to much messages in
my eyes that say that they cannot be resolved because of backward
compatibility.

Cor
Click to expand...


I hope that helps,


--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
 
Nick,

Were did you check this, at office. I hope (and know) that this is not an
official message from Microsoft.

I am really very much in doubt if it is true, Microsoft has promished with
the start of the frameworks that they would not create again a new kind and
even worse DLL hell., It would be contantly downwards compatible, we the
exception of the development part. What is logic, because than it would be
in fact upwards compatibility..

Cor
 
Gosh, Cor. I hope I didn't mis-speak.

I did not verify my statements with official product support teams and, as
always, you should take my statements to be those of a single, quite
fallable, but helpful individual who works for MS but is not paid to perform
my duties on this forum.

Can you help me to understand exactly what message you feel that I have
stated but that you disagree with? Perhaps I have not been clear, and the
last thing I'd want to do would be to mislead or misinform you or anyone
else on this board.



--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Cor Ligthert said:
Nick,

Were did you check this, at office. I hope (and know) that this is not an
official message from Microsoft.

I am really very much in doubt if it is true, Microsoft has promished with
the start of the frameworks that they would not create again a new kind
and even worse DLL hell., It would be contantly downwards compatible, we
the exception of the development part. What is logic, because than it
would be in fact upwards compatibility..

Cor
Click to expand...
 
Nick,

This one

As far as I remember me was the goal was to keep it downwards compatible for
end users. (not for developpers)

However it is advaisable at the moment to do as you wrote for the versions
1.1 and 2.0 because by instance some solved bugs from 1.1 in 2.0 which
create breaking changes. (Just think by instance at the dataview which is in
2.0 completely dynamicly as it had to be in 1.1 conform the documentation as
well).

I have the idea because some text on bugs reports that your employer very
well understood that now.

Cor


Nick Malik said:
Gosh, Cor. I hope I didn't mis-speak.

I did not verify my statements with official product support teams and, as
always, you should take my statements to be those of a single, quite
fallable, but helpful individual who works for MS but is not paid to
perform my duties on this forum.

Can you help me to understand exactly what message you feel that I have
stated but that you disagree with? Perhaps I have not been clear, and the
last thing I'd want to do would be to mislead or misinform you or anyone
else on this board.



--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top