Standards

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 17:20 GMT

Hi,

What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the BCLs?

Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard" and
everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS specific and in
general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific classes.

Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it be not
very portable and therefore should belong under the Microsoft.* namespace?

Thanks

Reply to this Message

Rob Tillie - 21 Aug 2003 20:34 GMT

You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/

Mainly the CLR and the System namespace I believe.
Well, Mono is trying to get an exact behaviour in porting almost any
namespace, wo that shouldn't be a problem.

Greetz,
-- Rob.

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 21:00 GMT

My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths, P/Invoke
to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less compatible).
That to me indicates NON STANDARD.

> You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> >
> > Thanks

Reply to this Message

Peter Vidler - 21 Aug 2003 21:13 GMT

Hi,

> My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.

Standards are not the problem (not the only problem, anyway). There is quite
a lot of Windows Forms functionality that requires P/Invoke or WndProc
overrides to get to. These cannot be compatible with linux (they use builtin
windows dll's or procedures). This is why wine is the best way to go atm for
compatibility.

Pete

Reply to this Message

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 22:53 GMT

So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
(ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?

Recipe for disaster

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Pete

Reply to this Message

Willy Denoyette [MVP] - 21 Aug 2003 22:53 GMT

|| So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the
|| Microsoft.* (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
||
|| Recipe for disaster

Please take some time and read the standard documents. The standard defines profiles and libraries,namespace names are not part of
the standard.

Willy.

Reply to this Message

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 23:03 GMT

I suggest they change it or make it portable.

> So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
> (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >
> > Pete

Reply to this Message

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 23:03 GMT

Then again what is to stop somebody implementing a method by method feature
by feature replacemetn that IS portable as System.WinForms.blah .dll?

> So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
> (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >
> > Pete

Reply to this Message

Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP] - 21 Aug 2003 22:26 GMT

AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.

-cd

> My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>>
>>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Umpa Lumpa - 21 Aug 2003 22:48 GMT

Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not Microsoft.*?

> AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks

Reply to this Message

Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP] - 21 Aug 2003 22:53 GMT

Wild guess -

Because the hierarchy of namespaces was put together before the decision to
submit the BCL and CLR to ECMA was finalized. I suppose they could have
chosen the typical Java solution - duplicate everything into another
namespace and deprecate it in the System namespace, while retaining it
forever for backwards compatibility.

-cd

> Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not
> Microsoft.*?
>
>> AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.

Reply to this Message

Brandon Bray [MSFT] - 23 Aug 2003 02:27 GMT

> Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not
> Microsoft.*?

It shouldn't matter what namespace is chosen. When using types in a program,
the type not only includes the namespace but also the name of the assembly.
This is a huge improvement over previous standards choices. Reserving a
namespace for the purpose of a standard is an easy way to create a mess.

Because the namespace of a type includes the assembly name, several
assemblies (even in the same program) can use the same namespace name with
completely different types. It does not hinder the progress of other library
vendors.

If you are concerned about ensuring your program is portable using only the
features of the ECMA and ISO standards, you can build and run the program
with the Shared Source CLI implementation.

Of course, I don't work on the frameworks, so I can't say with any authority
as to why they chose the namespaces they did. All I can say is that it
shouldn't have any impact on developers, they should just be usable.

Cheerio!

Signature

Brandon Bray Visual C++ Compiler
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Reply to this Message

Mr.Tickle - 23 Aug 2003 09:57 GMT

People are under the impression WinForms is portable , yet it is not the
case. (100%).

> > Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not
> > Microsoft.*?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Brandon Bray Visual C++ Compiler
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread:

Standards

Free Magazines