Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsFree MagazinesWhite PapersSubmit Content
Discussion GroupsASP.NETWindows FormsLanguages.NET FrameworkVisual Studio.NET
Articles.NET FrameworkASP.NETToolsWindows Forms
.NET DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Visual Basic 6SQL ServerMS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

.NET 3.0 ....

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Remote_User - 21 May 2007 11:23 GMT
Hi,
   What are the advantages/new features .NET 3.0 brings in compared
to .NET 1.1.What are the impacts on the current system using 1.1,
backward compatibility etc. Can i get some heads-on comparison between
the two?
Reply to this Message
Marc Gravell - 21 May 2007 11:35 GMT
This is really a comparison between 1.1 and 2.0, as .Net 3.0 is
actually .Net 2.0 plus a few extra libs (WCF, WPF etc). The next big
change comes in .Net 3.5.

Comparisons abound; I can't find the one I usually quote, but how
about:
http://blah.winsmarts.com//Post.aspx?postID=41

The biggest change is generics, but various other features.

But I agree with the sentiment : if you *can* change to 2.0 (from
1.1), then do so.

Whether you want 3.0 depends on what you are doing; if you are using
WSE/remoting then WCF is worth a peek. If you want workflow then WF;
WPF is a complete overhaul of the GUI layer, so is best for
green-field sites, plus it is a whole new skillset to learn.

Marc
Reply to this Message
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 12:34 GMT
Uh, oh- another buzzword. What is "Green-field" - a version of Web 2.0?
Enlighten us.
Peter

Signature

Site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more:    http://ittyurl.net

> This is really a comparison between 1.1 and 2.0, as .Net 3.0 is
> actually .Net 2.0 plus a few extra libs (WCF, WPF etc). The next big
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Marc
Reply to this Message
Marc Gravell - 21 May 2007 12:40 GMT
> Uh, oh- another buzzword. What is "Green-field" - a version of Web
> 2.0?

As in - a fresh project; I know you can talk from WPF <---> winform,
but it gets a little messy. Plus it gives an inconsistent UI with
different forms working differently. Hence IMO, WPF is best reserved
for new projects, not as bolt-ons to established products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project

Marc
Reply to this Message
Marc Gravell - 21 May 2007 12:48 GMT
> so is best for green-field sites,

And to clarify: by this I meant "is best *reserved* for"; I'm not
saying "use WPF, it is far better" - rather "I wouldn't go trying to
bodge it into existing work".

Personally I still don't find the WPF visual tools very easy to use...
this could just be through my familiarity with the old-school winforms
(compared to the new ones), so I'm willing to give it the benefit of
the doubt... but it could arguably do with some more time to mature /
bed-in? Of course, maturity only comes through usage... catch-22...
;-p

Marc
Reply to this Message
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 14:24 GMT
Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.
Somehow it reminded me of the green field desktop wallpaper that's standard
with Windows XP.  WPF tools should become more integrated and usable over
time. Orcas steps in that direction.
Peter

Signature

Site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

> > so is best for green-field sites,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Marc
Reply to this Message
Ollie Riches - 21 May 2007 14:40 GMT
Peter,

as you probably know devs everywhere want to work on 'greenfield' projects
and no one wants to work on existing application development.

defintion at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project

Ollie Riches

> Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble
> vocabulary.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
>> Marc
Reply to this Message
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 17:19 GMT
Thanks for that, Ollie. A Wikipedia entry makes it even more "for real". I
guess I just can't keep up with the terminology. Must be from working too
many Greenfield projects. :-)
Pete
Signature

Site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more:    http://ittyurl.net

> Peter,
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> >>
> >> Marc
Reply to this Message
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 18:03 GMT
> Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.

There's nothing particularly technical about it. For instance, when
talking about housing (at least in the UK) there's always the
distinction between green-field sites and brown-field sites.

Signature

Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet   Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Reply to this Message
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 22:12 GMT
Yes, but over here on this side of the Pond we bloody Noo Yawkers haven't
been exposed to the Queen's English.
:-)
Signature

Site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more:    http://ittyurl.net

> > Excellent. "Green-field site" has been added to my technobabble vocabulary.
>
> There's nothing particularly technical about it. For instance, when
> talking about housing (at least in the UK) there's always the
> distinction between green-field sites and brown-field sites.
Reply to this Message
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 21 May 2007 22:23 GMT
> Yes, but over here on this side of the Pond we bloody Noo Yawkers haven't
> been exposed to the Queen's English.

I shall make a point of including as much UK-specific jargon as
possible in future posts. Purely for educational purposes, of course.

Signature

Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet   Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Reply to this Message
Mark Rae - 21 May 2007 22:31 GMT
> I shall make a point of including as much UK-specific jargon as
> possible in future posts. Purely for educational purposes, of course.

I should coco.

Signature

http://www.markrae.net

Reply to this Message
Remote_User - 25 May 2007 19:35 GMT
Hi all,
       So if i am going for a new application which is focused upon
communication between two different systems or a client-server model,
assuming i use DCOM model, will 3.0 provide me something better so
that i can move to it AND *giving me backward compability*, if i want
to add a new client created using old framework versions can this be
handled too? Also can you guys please tell where can i find such
architectural/system etc  details about .NET so that i can or may try
to valuate the justification of moving to 3.0 else go to 2.0 from the
existing 1.1?
       Is 3.0 available by the way for licensed use?

Thanks in advance!
Reply to this Message

Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage
Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.