.NET and VB6

[Steve]

I have VB6 development system installed on my PC (running Win2000). A VB6
project I have on the PC uses ADO and contained a reference to the ADO 2.6
library (msado15.dll). I installed .NET (including the prerequisites) on my
PC. When I opened my VB6 project in VB6, the project contained a reference
to msado26.tlb, which was identified as the ADO 2.6 library. I'm assuming
this provides backward compatibility to ADO for .NET.

I guess my questions are 1) can I, or should I, change the ADO reference
back to msado15.dll in my VB6 project; and 2) if I can't or shouldn't change
it back, do I need to distribute the msado26.tlb file with the VB6 app., or
should I continute to distribute the msado15.dll?

Thanks in advance...
Steve

[Miha Markic]

Hi Steve,

They should be backward compatible.
Shouldn't you install the whole ado thing instead of distributing dlls?

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com

"Steve" <No**@None.com> wrote in message
news:eN**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

I have VB6 development system installed on my PC (running Win2000). A VB6
project I have on the PC uses ADO and contained a reference to the ADO 2.6
library (msado15.dll). I installed .NET (including the prerequisites) on my PC. When I opened my VB6 project in VB6, the project contained a reference
to msado26.tlb, which was identified as the ADO 2.6 library. I'm assuming
this provides backward compatibility to ADO for .NET.

I guess my questions are 1) can I, or should I, change the ADO reference
back to msado15.dll in my VB6 project; and 2) if I can't or shouldn't change it back, do I need to distribute the msado26.tlb file with the VB6 app., or should I continute to distribute the msado15.dll?

Thanks in advance...
Steve

[Steve]

Hi Miha,

Thanks for the response. Yes, we do distribute the 2.6 MDAC, which
contains the msado15.dll file. I probably should've phrased my post better.

The real issue, I guess, is what our installation software, InstallShield,
is going to want to include in the installation package for the App. The
project's .VPB file now includes the reference to the .tlb file, which I
guess is part of MDAC 2.7 or 2.8. I know we can force MDAC 2.6 to be
included, I guess I was just wondering if we should continue to distribute
the MDAC 2.6 or distribute 2.7 or 2.8.

Thanks again for the response.
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:u1**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Hi Steve,

They should be backward compatible.
Shouldn't you install the whole ado thing instead of distributing dlls?

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com

"Steve" <No**@None.com> wrote in message
news:eN**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

I have VB6 development system installed on my PC (running Win2000). A VB6 project I have on the PC uses ADO and contained a reference to the ADO 2.6 library (msado15.dll). I installed .NET (including the prerequisites) on

my

PC. When I opened my VB6 project in VB6, the project contained a

reference to msado26.tlb, which was identified as the ADO 2.6 library. I'm assuming this provides backward compatibility to ADO for .NET.

I guess my questions are 1) can I, or should I, change the ADO reference
back to msado15.dll in my VB6 project; and 2) if I can't or shouldn't

change

it back, do I need to distribute the msado26.tlb file with the VB6 app.,

or

should I continute to distribute the msado15.dll?

Thanks in advance...
Steve

[Miha Markic]

Hi Steve,

"Steve" <No**@None.com> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Miha,

Thanks for the response. Yes, we do distribute the 2.6 MDAC, which
contains the msado15.dll file. I probably should've phrased my post better.

:)
The real issue, I guess, is what our installation software, InstallShield,
is going to want to include in the installation package for the App. The
project's .VPB file now includes the reference to the .tlb file, which I
guess is part of MDAC 2.7 or 2.8. I know we can force MDAC 2.6 to be
included, I guess I was just wondering if we should continue to distribute
the MDAC 2.6 or distribute 2.7 or 2.8.

I think that they should be backward compatible - imagine a machine with
only 2.8 installed - all of the old programs which relied on 2.6 wouldn't
work in the opposite case.
You might try it though.

--
Miha Markic - DXSquad/RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com

Developer Express newsgroups are for peer-to-peer support.
For direct support from Developer Express, write to su*****@devexpress.com
Bug reports should be directed to: su*****@devexpress.com
Due to newsgroup guidelines, DX-Squad will not answer anonymous postings.

[John]

Steve and Miha,
I believe Microsoft Fouled up on MDAC 2.7 and above. Appearantly they
fixed, or made ready for the new version of windows, and the previous
version was broken.
My memory may be bad, but I believe that 2.6 is the highest you can go on
Win 95. 2.7 Requires explorer 5 or greater to be installed inorder to work
properly. There were other caviots (please forgive spelling.)
I know that some 2.6 applications would not work correctly under 2.7 and
above. Check out Microsoft's web site for more details.

Just goes to prove, you can't always trust MS to be maintain "Backwards"
compatability.

John.
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Steve,

"Steve" <No**@None.com> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Miha,

Thanks for the response. Yes, we do distribute the 2.6 MDAC, which
contains the msado15.dll file. I probably should've phrased my post

better.

:)

The real issue, I guess, is what our installation software, InstallShield, is going to want to include in the installation package for the App. The project's .VPB file now includes the reference to the .tlb file, which I
guess is part of MDAC 2.7 or 2.8. I know we can force MDAC 2.6 to be
included, I guess I was just wondering if we should continue to distribute the MDAC 2.6 or distribute 2.7 or 2.8.

I think that they should be backward compatible - imagine a machine with
only 2.8 installed - all of the old programs which relied on 2.6 wouldn't
work in the opposite case.
You might try it though.

--
Miha Markic - DXSquad/RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com

Developer Express newsgroups are for peer-to-peer support.
For direct support from Developer Express, write to su*****@devexpress.com
Bug reports should be directed to: su*****@devexpress.com
Due to newsgroup guidelines, DX-Squad will not answer anonymous postings.