Alex Hoffman

Perspective on management, development and technology

Syndication

News

    Subscribe

    IASA Member

A NET 1.1 Dilemma?

Should one consider releasing a product built against the 1.1 framework rather than 1.0? Is it reasonable to insist on installation of the 1.1 framework, or is that unreasonable at this point from a marketing perspective?

The reason for posing this question, is that there is an inconsistency between the two versions of the framework when compiling an non J# assembly against a J# assembly using the CodeDom or the command line compilers.

All works fine on 1.1, however on 1.0, one is forced to reference the assembly which contains the J# JDK libraries - vjslib.dll - using its absolute path.

In the product, code and settings are distributed - not binaries - an absolute reference which is not transportable is unacceptable.

Is installation of 1.1 a reasonable prerequisite or is it marketing mistake?

Update -this is a marketing question, not one about the use of configuration files. Configuration files do not solve the dilemma described.

Published Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:27 AM by Alex Hoffman

Comments

# re: A NET 1.1 Dilemma?@ Wednesday, May 07, 2003 1:08 AM

The .NET Framework 1.1 is not a major version, and it's supposed to have been design with compatibility in mind. So, except a few compatibility issues, I'd advice that you test your application on both versions of hte runtime, and that you provide at installation time a manifest file indicating to the CLR that your app supports both versions.

Here's a sample manifest file:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.5000.0"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.0.3300.0"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

For more details, please refer to this article:
http://www.fawcette.com/vsm/2002_12/magazine/columns/desktopdeveloper/default_pf.asp

/Christophe

Christophe Lauer

# re: A NET 1.1 Dilemma?@ Wednesday, May 07, 2003 1:21 AM

Unfortunately, a configuration file doesn't solve the dilemma described.

The "not a major version" point is an interesting one. Given that it is an independent side-by-side installation release. shouldn't it be considered a "Major" release despite the version number?

Alex Hoffman

# re: A NET 1.1 Dilemma?@ Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:09 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is like requiring that you upgrade to the latest version of DirectX to run a particular game. What's the big deal?

JimS