.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / November 2007
.Net 3.5 SP1
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike - 29 Nov 2007 21:22 GMT Now that 3.5 has been released, is there any target for its first SP? My company, along with many others, is a little leary targeting production servers with a "1.0" flavor of LINQ and other new features.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 29 Nov 2007 21:42 GMT > Now that 3.5 has been released, is there any target for its first SP? My > company, along with many others, is a little leary targeting production > servers with a "1.0" flavor of LINQ and other new features. I think we (and Microsoft) would need to know what issues there are before thinking about a target for a service pack...
 Signature Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
Mike - 29 Nov 2007 22:26 GMT Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reply. I concur, however as in the past, there are always issues that come up late in the beta cycles that are deemed non-critical to the final release and resolutions are put off until afterwards and addressed as a SP. Many, if not most, put off adoption of new technologies (LINQ, anonymouse types, etc) until its gone through at least one iteration of real world production release cycles.
Thanks,
Mike
> > Now that 3.5 has been released, is there any target for its first SP? My > > company, along with many others, is a little leary targeting production > > servers with a "1.0" flavor of LINQ and other new features. > > I think we (and Microsoft) would need to know what issues there are > before thinking about a target for a service pack... Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - 29 Nov 2007 22:55 GMT If there is one, it has not been published.
While I agree with you that features are sometimes pushed back, along with bug fixes, the LINQ and anonymous types features are language features, not framework features. This is not saying that they will not have any issues, but that they would not necessarily be tied to a full SP.
Thus far, I am a bit leery about LINQ for reasons other than it not be an SP1 release. But most of my concerns are Enterprise level.
 Signature Gregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
*************************************************
| Think outside the box! *************************************************
> Now that 3.5 has been released, is there any target for its first SP? My > company, along with many others, is a little leary targeting production [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike Mike - 29 Nov 2007 23:42 GMT Hi Gregory,
I believe they are tied to both the language and the runtime (only the 3.5 version of csc.exe/vbc.exe can compile them), and the framework was extended to support them. Just try compiling with 2.0/3.0 as target or under VS2005 - as you can see, both are required.
Regards,
-Mike
> If there is one, it has not been published. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Mike Mike - 29 Nov 2007 23:46 GMT An interesting aside to this is just because you target to 2.0, the 3.5 compiler is still used. So if there is a problem with he IL generated by that compiler, code that worked under VS2005 may not work under VS2008.
> Hi Gregory, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > > > > Mike Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 30 Nov 2007 00:10 GMT > I believe they are tied to both the language and the runtime (only the 3.5 > version of csc.exe/vbc.exe can compile them), and the framework was extended > to support them. Just try compiling with 2.0/3.0 as target or under VS2005 - > as you can see, both are required. You can use almost all of the C# 3 features when using 2.0 or 3.0 as the target, and when doing so they'll run perfectly well without the 3.5 runtime. Indeed, with appropriate support of 3rd party libraries, query expressions will work just fine.
The only language feature which absolutely definitely requires 3.5 is expression trees. Lambda expression to delegate conversion is fine, anonymous types are fine, extension methods are fine with the addition of a single extra attribute...
 Signature Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
Mike - 30 Nov 2007 00:25 GMT Jon,
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but doesnt LINQ make heavy use of the types defined in System.Linq - such as IQueryable<>, IGrouping<>, etc?
> > I believe they are tied to both the language and the runtime (only the 3.5 > > version of csc.exe/vbc.exe can compile them), and the framework was extended [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anonymous types are fine, extension methods are fine with the addition > of a single extra attribute... Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 30 Nov 2007 00:45 GMT > Correct me if I'm wrong please, but doesnt LINQ make heavy use of the types > defined in System.Linq - such as IQueryable<>, IGrouping<>, etc? LINQ itself does - but strictly speaking, LINQ isn't a language feature. The word LINQ only appears in the C# 3 spec in namespaces.
The C# 3 feature *enabling* LINQ is query expressions, and they can work with anything that provides the appropriate methods. For instance:
public delegate TRet FakeFunc<TIn, TRet>(TIn x);
public class FakeLinq { public FakeLinq Where(FakeFunc<FakeLinq,bool> x) { return null; } public T Select<T>(FakeFunc<FakeLinq,T> y) { return default(T); } }
class Test { static void Main() { var x = from z in new FakeLinq() where z==null select z.ToString(); } }
Not an IEnumerable<T> in sight. The above would compile with the C# 3 compiler targeting .NET 2.0, and run under .NET 2.0.
> > > I believe they are tied to both the language and the runtime (only the 3.5 > > > version of csc.exe/vbc.exe can compile them), and the framework was extended [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > anonymous types are fine, extension methods are fine with the addition > > of a single extra attribute...
 Signature Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
Mike - 30 Nov 2007 01:15 GMT Ok, I follow that somewhat. The syntax is simply interpreted as a series of function calls, etc.
Thanks,
Mike
> > Correct me if I'm wrong please, but doesnt LINQ make heavy use of the types > > defined in System.Linq - such as IQueryable<>, IGrouping<>, etc? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > anonymous types are fine, extension methods are fine with the addition > > > of a single extra attribute... Jon Skeet [C# MVP] - 30 Nov 2007 08:08 GMT > Ok, I follow that somewhat. The syntax is simply interpreted as a series of > function calls, etc. Exactly - and that "query expression to normal C#" translation is entirely mechanical; it doesn't rely on any specific types etc. That's how different LINQ providers work - by providing normal or extension methods which work on their data sources. It's very, very cunning. It also means that query expressions have a very limited impact on the language spec - they're an isolated feature, effectively.
 Signature Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - 30 Nov 2007 14:41 GMT That is true. I am thinking a bit too Microsoft today.
LINQ syntax, itself, is built into the language. There is much of LINQ that requires support of the Framework, so I guess that feature does sit on the cusp of language and Framework.
Back to the original question: I am not sure anyone knows if and when a SP1 is planned and I am sure it would be NDA information if they knew.
 Signature Gregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
*************************************************
| Think outside the box! *************************************************
> Jon, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> anonymous types are fine, extension methods are fine with the addition >> of a single extra attribute... Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - 30 Nov 2007 14:39 GMT While it is true the compilers are package with the framework, I would not call them a Framework feature, per se, as they are language dependent (csc versus vbc). I do agree, however, that they ship with a certain version of the framework, so you will have to have the framework installed to get the newest bits. It was the language teams who work through features like LINQ, lambda expressions, etc.
It is true, however, that some features might not compile to 2.0 (if you target it), but most should not have problems, as the compiler has the ability to convert most to 2.0. Jon has already covered this.
 Signature Gregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
*************************************************
| Think outside the box! *************************************************
> Hi Gregory, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> > >> > Mike
Free MagazinesGet 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 ...
|
|
|