By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
444,234 Members | 1,869 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 444,234 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

1.1 to 1.0

P: n/a
Nak
Hi there,

I was wondering if it was possible to reference a 1.1 Framework version
DLL in a 1.0 application if the 1.1 DLL is 1.0 compatible? Cheers in
advance.

Nick.
Nov 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
12 Replies


P: n/a
Nak
Ignore that one, SharpDevelop has a feature that VB.NET could do with,
compilation for other Framework versions, nice.

Nick.

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OG****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi there,

I was wondering if it was possible to reference a 1.1 Framework version DLL in a 1.0 application if the 1.1 DLL is 1.0 compatible? Cheers in
advance.

Nick.

Nov 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
* "Nak" <a@a.com> scripsit:
I was wondering if it was possible to reference a 1.1 Framework version
DLL in a 1.0 application if the 1.1 DLL is 1.0 compatible? Cheers in
advance.


/Why?/ If the DLL is a .NET 1.1 assembly, .NET 1.1 should be installed
(it's not mandatory in some cases, but recommended), then the
application using the DLL can be a .NET 1.1 assembly too...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
ur framework comes with both 1.1 and 1.0 in ur folder

Nak wrote:
Hi there,

I was wondering if it was possible to reference a 1.1 Framework version
DLL in a 1.0 application if the 1.1 DLL is 1.0 compatible? Cheers in
advance.

Nick.


Nov 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Nak
Herfried,
/Why?/ If the DLL is a .NET 1.1 assembly, .NET 1.1 should be installed
(it's not mandatory in some cases, but recommended), then the
application using the DLL can be a .NET 1.1 assembly too...


LOL!

Imagine this Herfried....

1) I posess VB.NET Standard 2002 (Which I have mentioned many a time,
and raised many discussions on)
2) I have a very small C# DLL that I havent converted to VB.NET as yet
3) The DLL is written using the new version of SharpDevelop which
compiles for version 1.1 of the Framework by default
4) The DLL and main executable are incompattable on a machine with both
Frameworks installed (As is the case on my machine) As each assembly uses
the Framework in which it was compiled for, this causes an exception to
occur unfortunately :-(

I have solved my problem now anyway as SharpDevelop allows for
compilation onto either Frameworks, which is very nice. Before I new this
feature existed I had to use the old version of SharpDevelop which was a bit
buggy and lacked loads of the current features, so I am happy that I can use
the new one now :-)

Nick.
Nov 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
* "Nak" <a@a.com> scripsit:
/Why?/ If the DLL is a .NET 1.1 assembly, .NET 1.1 should be installed
(it's not mandatory in some cases, but recommended), then the
application using the DLL can be a .NET 1.1 assembly too...
LOL!

Imagine this Herfried....

1) I posess VB.NET Standard 2002 (Which I have mentioned many a time,
and raised many discussions on)


OK, that's a reason!
I have solved my problem now anyway as SharpDevelop allows for
compilation onto either Frameworks, which is very nice.


:-)

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Nov 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Nick,

Do you have this link?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...leroptions.asp

Cor
Nov 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
In article <eN**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, Nak wrote:
Herfried,
/Why?/ If the DLL is a .NET 1.1 assembly, .NET 1.1 should be installed
(it's not mandatory in some cases, but recommended), then the
application using the DLL can be a .NET 1.1 assembly too...
LOL!

Imagine this Herfried....


<snip>
4) The DLL and main executable are incompattable on a machine with both
Frameworks installed (As is the case on my machine) As each assembly uses
the Framework in which it was compiled for, this causes an exception to
occur unfortunately :-(


Hmmm, did you try telling the dll compiled on 1.1 to use the 1.0
framework? I have a windows service that was developed on 1.1 running
on a box with the 1.0 framework. You should just have to setup an app.config
file - as long as the dll doesn't use any 1.1 specific classes or
methods.

--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Nov 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Nick,
Yes!

You need to add an app.config to your .exe, in the app.config. you need to
add all the entries that will redirect your 1.1. assembly and all the
assemblies that it references to 1.0.

See the referenced articles at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ecutiontop.asp

Note if the 1.1 assembly has a designer, I have not seen a reliable method
of using the designer in VS.NET 2002...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OG****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi there,

I was wondering if it was possible to reference a 1.1 Framework version DLL in a 1.0 application if the 1.1 DLL is 1.0 compatible? Cheers in
advance.

Nick.

Nov 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Nak
Hi Jay,
Yes!

You need to add an app.config to your .exe, in the app.config. you need to
add all the entries that will redirect your 1.1. assembly and all the
assemblies that it references to 1.0.

See the referenced articles at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ecutiontop.asp
Note if the 1.1 assembly has a designer, I have not seen a reliable method
of using the designer in VS.NET 2002...


Aaah, that is good to know, I wasn't aware of this one. Although I have
used a different solution for now, as making the entire solution suitable
for 1.0 of the framework only as the majority of my project is. Hopefully I
shall upgrade my IDE one day and I wont need to do this. But this is
definitely good information, so this would mean that I can downgrade any
assembly to 1.0 without recompiling? Handy if the assembly is not mine,
that is for sure!

Nick.
Nov 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Nak
Hi Tom,
Hmmm, did you try telling the dll compiled on 1.1 to use the 1.0
framework? I have a windows service that was developed on 1.1 running
on a box with the 1.0 framework. You should just have to setup an app.config file - as long as the dll doesn't use any 1.1 specific classes or
methods.


I've written a reply to Jay in response to your 2 answers, but it is
directed towards *you* also. Cheers for the information, this is quite
handy to know.

Nick.
Nov 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Nick,
But this is
definitely good information, so this would mean that I can downgrade any
assembly to 1.0 without recompiling? Yes, any assembly that does not require 1.1 specific objects or methods can
be run on 1.0 without recompiling, if there is a 1.1 specific object or
method, I would expect it not to load, or simply fail (exception) when it
gets to that statement. The following site lists changes from 1.0 to 1.1
along with the new 1.1 to 2.0 changes.

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/default.aspx
Handy if the assembly is not mine, Actually its also handy if the assembly is yours and it needs to be deployed
to a machine with 1.0 only. VS.NET 2003 has an option under the Project
Properties that will generate all the app.config file settings for you.

Hope this helps
Jay

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Hi Jay,
Yes!

You need to add an app.config to your .exe, in the app.config. you need to add all the entries that will redirect your 1.1. assembly and all the
assemblies that it references to 1.0.

See the referenced articles at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ecutiontop.asp

Note if the 1.1 assembly has a designer, I have not seen a reliable method of using the designer in VS.NET 2002...


Aaah, that is good to know, I wasn't aware of this one. Although I have
used a different solution for now, as making the entire solution suitable
for 1.0 of the framework only as the majority of my project is. Hopefully

I shall upgrade my IDE one day and I wont need to do this. But this is
definitely good information, so this would mean that I can downgrade any
assembly to 1.0 without recompiling? Handy if the assembly is not mine,
that is for sure!

Nick.

Nov 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Nak
Cheers again Jay!

:-)

Nick.

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:un*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Nick,
But this is
definitely good information, so this would mean that I can downgrade any
assembly to 1.0 without recompiling? Yes, any assembly that does not require 1.1 specific objects or methods

can be run on 1.0 without recompiling, if there is a 1.1 specific object or
method, I would expect it not to load, or simply fail (exception) when it
gets to that statement. The following site lists changes from 1.0 to 1.1
along with the new 1.1 to 2.0 changes.

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/default.aspx
Handy if the assembly is not mine, Actually its also handy if the assembly is yours and it needs to be

deployed to a machine with 1.0 only. VS.NET 2003 has an option under the Project
Properties that will generate all the app.config file settings for you.

Hope this helps
Jay

"Nak" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi Jay,
Yes!

You need to add an app.config to your .exe, in the app.config. you need
to
add all the entries that will redirect your 1.1. assembly and all the
assemblies that it references to 1.0.

See the referenced articles at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ecutiontop.asp
Note if the 1.1 assembly has a designer, I have not seen a reliable method of using the designer in VS.NET 2002...


Aaah, that is good to know, I wasn't aware of this one. Although I have
used a different solution for now, as making the entire solution suitable for 1.0 of the framework only as the majority of my project is.

Hopefully I
shall upgrade my IDE one day and I wont need to do this. But this is
definitely good information, so this would mean that I can downgrade any
assembly to 1.0 without recompiling? Handy if the assembly is not mine,
that is for sure!

Nick.


Nov 20 '05 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.