.net 2.0 framework compatability

[Jack Russell]

Is the .net 2 framework fully compatible with 1.1

i.e. If I develop a program using 1.1 can the user just have the .net 2
framework installed on his PC?

(I cannot think whether this is upward or downward compatibility)!

Thanks

Jack Russell

[Greg Burns]

"Jack Russell" <ja***@norubbish.tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:uw**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Is the .net 2 framework fully compatible with 1.1

i.e. If I develop a program using 1.1 can the user just have the .net 2
framework installed on his PC?

(I cannot think whether this is upward or downward compatibility)!

I've seen that to be true. Where I've run into problems, is after
recompiling a 1.1 program with 2.0 framework. My program THEN behaved
differently.

http://tinyurl.com/dxbf2

Greg

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Greg,

I did not look to it before, however in my opinion can you say that the 1.1
way is a bug.

What happens in your routine is:

There is a sort order in the dv that should be dynamic.

In 1.1 it does not react on it if you change inside the for loop
In 2.0 it changes the order direct when there is a change in the sortorder.

I agree with you that the last can give weird results.

Cor

"Greg Burns" <bl*******@newsgroups.nospam> schreef in bericht
news:Ou**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jack Russell" <ja***@norubbish.tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:uw**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Is the .net 2 framework fully compatible with 1.1

i.e. If I develop a program using 1.1 can the user just have the .net 2
framework installed on his PC?

(I cannot think whether this is upward or downward compatibility)!

I've seen that to be true. Where I've run into problems, is after
recompiling a 1.1 program with 2.0 framework. My program THEN behaved
differently.

http://tinyurl.com/dxbf2

Greg

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Jack Russell" <ja***@norubbish.tpg.com.au> schrieb:

Is the .net 2 framework fully compatible with 1.1

i.e. If I develop a program using 1.1 can the user just have the .net 2
framework installed on his PC?

<URL:http://groups.google.de/group/microsoft.public.de.german.entwickler.dotnet.cshar p/msg/ce73aaf66c6e5802>

<URL:http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/>

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Greg Burns]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Greg,

I did not look to it before, however in my opinion can you say that the
1.1 way is a bug.

What happens in your routine is:

There is a sort order in the dv that should be dynamic.

In 1.1 it does not react on it if you change inside the for loop
In 2.0 it changes the order direct when there is a change in the
sortorder.

I agree with you that the last can give weird results.

Cor

I would agree also it was probably a bug. (Definately poorly written code on
my part.) But the lesson here is, if you recompile you need to do some
thorough testing.

In fact I forgot about this test I did and reported in another thread...

"I just ran my test app (the 1.1 version) from that thread on a machine with
nothing but 2.0 on it. I got the 2.0 output (not suprising)."

In other words, if 1.1 is not available to the program it will run using 2.0
framework. (kinda obvious when you think about it) And any hidden gotchas
will appear WITHOUT recompiling! Anybody else see a problem here? :^)

You would think .NET apps would REQUIRE the framework they were complied
against since they obvioulsy may no't work the same on newer builds. (I
know there is a way to enforce this in a *.config file, but maybe it should
be the default behavior, no?)

Greg

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Greg,

You are right, it is a good lesson as well for me.

Cor

"Greg Burns" <bl*******@newsgroups.nospam> schreef in bericht
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Greg,

I did not look to it before, however in my opinion can you say that the
1.1 way is a bug.

What happens in your routine is:

There is a sort order in the dv that should be dynamic.

In 1.1 it does not react on it if you change inside the for loop
In 2.0 it changes the order direct when there is a change in the
sortorder.

I agree with you that the last can give weird results.

Cor

I would agree also it was probably a bug. (Definately poorly written code
on my part.) But the lesson here is, if you recompile you need to do some
thorough testing.

In fact I forgot about this test I did and reported in another thread...

"I just ran my test app (the 1.1 version) from that thread on a machine
with
nothing but 2.0 on it. I got the 2.0 output (not suprising)."

In other words, if 1.1 is not available to the program it will run using
2.0 framework. (kinda obvious when you think about it) And any hidden
gotchas will appear WITHOUT recompiling! Anybody else see a problem here?
:^)

You would think .NET apps would REQUIRE the framework they were complied
against since they obvioulsy may no't work the same on newer builds. (I
know there is a way to enforce this in a *.config file, but maybe it
should be the default behavior, no?)

Greg