.NET 3.0 ....

[Remote_User]

Hi,
What are the advantages/new features .NET 3.0 brings in compared
to .NET 1.1.What are the impacts on the current system using 1.1,
backward compatibility etc. Can i get some heads-on comparison between
the two?

[Marc Gravell]

This is really a comparison between 1.1 and 2.0, as .Net 3.0 is
actually .Net 2.0 plus a few extra libs (WCF, WPF etc). The next big
change comes in .Net 3.5.

Comparisons abound; I can't find the one I usually quote, but how
about:
http://blah.winsmarts.com//Post.aspx?postID=41

The biggest change is generics, but various other features.

But I agree with the sentiment : if you *can* change to 2.0 (from
1.1), then do so.

Whether you want 3.0 depends on what you are doing; if you are using
WSE/remoting then WCF is worth a peek. If you want workflow then WF;
WPF is a complete overhaul of the GUI layer, so is best for
green-field sites, plus it is a whole new skillset to learn.

Marc

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Uh, oh- another buzzword. What is "Green-field" - a version of Web 2.0?
Enlighten us.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Marc Gravell" wrote:

This is really a comparison between 1.1 and 2.0, as .Net 3.0 is
actually .Net 2.0 plus a few extra libs (WCF, WPF etc). The next big
change comes in .Net 3.5.

Comparisons abound; I can't find the one I usually quote, but how
about:
http://blah.winsmarts.com//Post.aspx?postID=41

The biggest change is generics, but various other features.

But I agree with the sentiment : if you *can* change to 2.0 (from
1.1), then do so.

Whether you want 3.0 depends on what you are doing; if you are using
WSE/remoting then WCF is worth a peek. If you want workflow then WF;
WPF is a complete overhaul of the GUI layer, so is best for
green-field sites, plus it is a whole new skillset to learn.

Marc

[Marc Gravell]

Uh, oh- another buzzword. What is "Green-field" - a version of Web

2.0?

As in - a fresh project; I know you can talk from WPF <---winform,
but it gets a little messy. Plus it gives an inconsistent UI with
different forms working differently. Hence IMO, WPF is best reserved
for new projects, not as bolt-ons to established products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project

Marc

[Marc Gravell]

so is best for green-field sites,

And to clarify: by this I meant "is best *reserved* for"; I'm not
saying "use WPF, it is far better" - rather "I wouldn't go trying to
bodge it into existing work".

Personally I still don't find the WPF visual tools very easy to use...
this could just be through my familiarity with the old-school winforms
(compared to the new ones), so I'm willing to give it the benefit of
the doubt... but it could arguably do with some more time to mature /
bed-in? Of course, maturity only comes through usage... catch-22...
;-p

Marc

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.
Somehow it reminded me of the green field desktop wallpaper that's standard
with Windows XP. WPF tools should become more integrated and usable over
time. Orcas steps in that direction.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"Marc Gravell" wrote:

so is best for green-field sites,

And to clarify: by this I meant "is best *reserved* for"; I'm not
saying "use WPF, it is far better" - rather "I wouldn't go trying to
bodge it into existing work".

Personally I still don't find the WPF visual tools very easy to use...
this could just be through my familiarity with the old-school winforms
(compared to the new ones), so I'm willing to give it the benefit of
the doubt... but it could arguably do with some more time to mature /
bed-in? Of course, maturity only comes through usage... catch-22...
;-p

Marc

[Ollie Riches]

Peter,

as you probably know devs everywhere want to work on 'greenfield' projects
and no one wants to work on existing application development.

defintion at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project

Ollie Riches
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pb*******@yahoo.yabbadabbadoo.comwrote in
message news:27**********************************@microsof t.com...

Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble
vocabulary.
Somehow it reminded me of the green field desktop wallpaper that's
standard
with Windows XP. WPF tools should become more integrated and usable over
time. Orcas steps in that direction.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"Marc Gravell" wrote:

so is best for green-field sites,

And to clarify: by this I meant "is best *reserved* for"; I'm not
saying "use WPF, it is far better" - rather "I wouldn't go trying to
bodge it into existing work".

Personally I still don't find the WPF visual tools very easy to use...
this could just be through my familiarity with the old-school winforms
(compared to the new ones), so I'm willing to give it the benefit of
the doubt... but it could arguably do with some more time to mature /
bed-in? Of course, maturity only comes through usage... catch-22...
;-p

Marc

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Thanks for that, Ollie. A Wikipedia entry makes it even more "for real". I
guess I just can't keep up with the terminology. Must be from working too
many Greenfield projects. :-)
Pete
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Ollie Riches" wrote:

Peter,

as you probably know devs everywhere want to work on 'greenfield' projects
and no one wants to work on existing application development.

defintion at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project

Ollie Riches
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pb*******@yahoo.yabbadabbadoo.comwrote in
message news:27**********************************@microsof t.com...

Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble
vocabulary.
Somehow it reminded me of the green field desktop wallpaper that's
standard
with Windows XP. WPF tools should become more integrated and usable over
time. Orcas steps in that direction.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"Marc Gravell" wrote:

so is best for green-field sites,

And to clarify: by this I meant "is best *reserved* for"; I'm not
saying "use WPF, it is far better" - rather "I wouldn't go trying to
bodge it into existing work".

Personally I still don't find the WPF visual tools very easy to use...
this could just be through my familiarity with the old-school winforms
(compared to the new ones), so I'm willing to give it the benefit of
the doubt... but it could arguably do with some more time to mature /
bed-in? Of course, maturity only comes through usage... catch-22...
;-p

Marc

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] <pb*******@yahoo.yabbadabbadoo.comwrote:

Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.

There's nothing particularly technical about it. For instance, when
talking about housing (at least in the UK) there's always the
distinction between green-field sites and brown-field sites.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Yes, but over here on this side of the Pond we bloody Noo Yawkers haven't
been exposed to the Queen's English.
:-)
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] <pb*******@yahoo.yabbadabbadoo.comwrote:

Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.

There's nothing particularly technical about it. For instance, when
talking about housing (at least in the UK) there's always the
distinction between green-field sites and brown-field sites.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] <pb*******@yahoo.yabbadabbadoo.comwrote:

Yes, but over here on this side of the Pond we bloody Noo Yawkers haven't
been exposed to the Queen's English.

I shall make a point of including as much UK-specific jargon as
possible in future posts. Purely for educational purposes, of course.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Mark Rae]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP*********************@msnews.microsoft.com. ..

I shall make a point of including as much UK-specific jargon as
possible in future posts. Purely for educational purposes, of course.

I should coco.
--
http://www.markrae.net

[Remote_User]

Hi all,
So if i am going for a new application which is focused upon
communication between two different systems or a client-server model,
assuming i use DCOM model, will 3.0 provide me something better so
that i can move to it AND *giving me backward compability*, if i want
to add a new client created using old framework versions can this be
handled too? Also can you guys please tell where can i find such
architectural/system etc details about .NET so that i can or may try
to valuate the justification of moving to 3.0 else go to 2.0 from the
existing 1.1?
Is 3.0 available by the way for licensed use?
Thanks in advance!