.net compatibility resolved in 2.0 ?

[Jon Paal]

In version 1.x .net websites came in multiple versions.

As illustrated by the sample starter kits, we saw the Visual Studio versions did not work with the code developed from just the SDK.

Can anyone tell me if this incompatibility will be resolved in 2.0, or are we still faced with multiple versions of applications ?

 

[Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]]

Hi Jon,

I don't think I heard of cases where sites using VS didn't work where ones
using just the SDK would work. It sounds more like a deployment issue. Could
you elaborate?

Ken
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]

 

[Jon Paal]

check out the 1.x starter kits at www.asp.net
they come in 4 different downloads: C# or vb, sdk or visual studio.

 

[Frankie]

What about the fact that 4 different downloads are available means or
implies any incompatability? What is incompatable with what here? Are you
hoping that in 2.0, for example, that "C# is compatable with VB"?

-F

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

The 2.0 Starter Kits come in only one download :

http://www.asp.net/vwd/starterkits.aspx?tabIndex=4&tabId=46

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

they come in 4 different downloads: C# or vb, sdk or visual studio.

I should have added that the 4 downloads were for convenence's sake.

One SDK version; One Visual Studio version.
One download for each language ( VB.NET and C# ).

The SDK and VS versions are compatible.
It's just that the SDK version doesn't have the VS project files.

Many developers don't have Visual Studio,
but the SDK is freely downloadable by anyone.

 

[Scott Allen]

This has been resolved.

As Juan points out, the 2.0 starter kits come in only one version. In
2.0 the Visual Studio 2005 IDE has no real control over how an ASP.NET
project gets built and runs - those responsibilities fall with the
platform (ASP.NET). ASP.NET owns the tools to do the compilation,
etc.

 

[Jon Paal]

vs and sdk aren't truly compatible.
-- vs demands codebehind, sdk doesn't.
-- vs creates a bundle of files never required/used by sdk developer
-- dll's created through sdk may not work with vs (namespace issue I thnk)
-- the autoeventwireup = false
-- namespace declarations may conflict because visual studio creates it's own


also by going from 4 to 1 , they will only be available in 1 language ?

 

[Jon Paal]

things like changing the CodeBehind="" to src="".

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

vs and sdk aren't truly compatible.

Actually, they are. You can run either with the other's code.

The differences are for convenience's sake, to *edit*
the files in the VS version, but they *are* compatible.

In fact, if you substitute a code-behind file in the VS 2003 version
with a non code-behind file in the SDK version, the application
will compile and run well.

re:

-- vs demands codebehind, sdk doesn't.

VS doesn't demand code-behind any more, although it did in VS 2003.

And, nothing stops you from writing code-behind with Notepad.
( That would be using the SDK... ) ;-)

Remember, the .Net JIT compiler will compile code-behind,
even if it didn't originate with VS.NET.

re:

-- vs creates a bundle of files never required/used by sdk developer

True, as pointed out, but that has nothing to do with "compatibility".

re:

-- dll's created through sdk may not work with vs (namespace issue I thnk)

They can, and do. All they need is a reference in VS 2003.
I use a lot of command-line-compiled assemblies in VS.NET 2003 projects.

re:

-- the autoeventwireup = false

True, but that's easily changed.

re:

also by going from 4 to 1 , they will only be available in 1 language ?

Initially, yes.
I think they will be made available in VB, too, but cannot guarantee.

 

[Jon Paal]

I don't think anybody actually uses notepad, it's more likely they use Web Matrix or one of the many smart text editors.

But I think the comments support what originally was my issue. I guess I don't consider it compatible if I have to manually edit
any files before I can actually run it.

Changing things like the "autoevents" code or to resolve the "codebehind= " to "src=" problem ; or If I have dig through VS-only
files to even find the necessary code to make the modifications isn't really compatible. I was just wondering if 2.0 eliminated
the conversion process. Doesn't sound as if it does.

One example of the DLL issue is here, probably isn't always the case.
http://forums.asp.net/816098/ShowPost.aspx


thanks for the info.