Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C#
  4. Wrapper class

Wrapper class

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C#
csharphelptutorialannouncement
8 Posts 3 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    ramdil
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Hi all i just want to know how to create a wrapper class in c# because i created dll in 2005 and now i want to use it in 2003 so backward compatibility is not there i want to create a wrapper class and then call it in 2003 version.,.can any one help me what all steps need to be done Advanced Thanks

    Regards DilipRam

    O 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R ramdil

      Hi all i just want to know how to create a wrapper class in c# because i created dll in 2005 and now i want to use it in 2003 so backward compatibility is not there i want to create a wrapper class and then call it in 2003 version.,.can any one help me what all steps need to be done Advanced Thanks

      Regards DilipRam

      O Offline
      O Offline
      originSH
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Thats not really possible, or atleast pretty hard and inefficient to do. Only one version of the framework can be loaded into a single process at a time. That means you'd have to use either something like an out of process COM server or maybe remoting or something like that. Either way you'd probably be best off working within the limitations of .Net 1.1 if you want something to be used from 1.1

      R 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • O originSH

        Thats not really possible, or atleast pretty hard and inefficient to do. Only one version of the framework can be loaded into a single process at a time. That means you'd have to use either something like an out of process COM server or maybe remoting or something like that. Either way you'd probably be best off working within the limitations of .Net 1.1 if you want something to be used from 1.1

        R Offline
        R Offline
        ramdil
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Hi thanks for the reply.. i can directly change the 2005 code to 2003 and use the dll for reference..but the think is that i have some additional properties which is in 2005 , i have used and are very important for me.so now when i changed to 2003 these properties are not there and hence it is creating very difficult problems.So i heard that there is way to play with it.we want to create a wrapper class and then call the wrapper class object but i dont know how to create it..can any one help me on this

        Regards DilipRam

        O 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R ramdil

          Hi thanks for the reply.. i can directly change the 2005 code to 2003 and use the dll for reference..but the think is that i have some additional properties which is in 2005 , i have used and are very important for me.so now when i changed to 2003 these properties are not there and hence it is creating very difficult problems.So i heard that there is way to play with it.we want to create a wrapper class and then call the wrapper class object but i dont know how to create it..can any one help me on this

          Regards DilipRam

          O Offline
          O Offline
          originSH
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          ramdil wrote:

          So i heard that there is way to play with it.

          Any hints on what you were told might work? :P As I said there are ways but they are inefficient and not a very good idea at all.

          ramdil wrote:

          very difficult problems

          It can be more akward to use 1.1 under 2003, but I wouldn't say it creates very difficult problems. Most of the time it just means a little more typing. What is it that your doing in .Net 2.0 that is so vital and you can't do in 1.1?

          R 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • O originSH

            ramdil wrote:

            So i heard that there is way to play with it.

            Any hints on what you were told might work? :P As I said there are ways but they are inefficient and not a very good idea at all.

            ramdil wrote:

            very difficult problems

            It can be more akward to use 1.1 under 2003, but I wouldn't say it creates very difficult problems. Most of the time it just means a little more typing. What is it that your doing in .Net 2.0 that is so vital and you can't do in 1.1?

            R Offline
            R Offline
            ramdil
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            When i searched the net, some where i saw that only way to work around with this type of issue is to create wrapper class but i dont how to work around it...

            Regards DilipRam

            O 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R ramdil

              When i searched the net, some where i saw that only way to work around with this type of issue is to create wrapper class but i dont how to work around it...

              Regards DilipRam

              O Offline
              O Offline
              originSH
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Ok I'll try this one last time in simple terms What is it that you were told to do to work around the issue? Please supply any information you have about it so that we can advise you on it. If its an article then provide the link. If you read it in an atricle didn't the article tell you how to do it? As far as I, and it seems anyone else around here, knows the only way to do this is not a good way to work. It's not worth it. You shouldn't do it unless you have a very good an important reason to do so. It's most likely that the article was either suggesting that you use an out of process server somehow and that is not an efficient way to go unless you really have to. It'll kill your performance and introduce plenty of chances for errorsy ou normally wouldn't have. It will hugly increase the complexity of your systems and generally be a bad idea. If you describe the features that you want to use in 2.0 but can't in 1.1 then maybe people can suggest what you can use instead. I'm off home now but if you provide the required info and no one has replied by tomorrow I'll jump right on it.

              R 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • O originSH

                Ok I'll try this one last time in simple terms What is it that you were told to do to work around the issue? Please supply any information you have about it so that we can advise you on it. If its an article then provide the link. If you read it in an atricle didn't the article tell you how to do it? As far as I, and it seems anyone else around here, knows the only way to do this is not a good way to work. It's not worth it. You shouldn't do it unless you have a very good an important reason to do so. It's most likely that the article was either suggesting that you use an out of process server somehow and that is not an efficient way to go unless you really have to. It'll kill your performance and introduce plenty of chances for errorsy ou normally wouldn't have. It will hugly increase the complexity of your systems and generally be a bad idea. If you describe the features that you want to use in 2.0 but can't in 1.1 then maybe people can suggest what you can use instead. I'm off home now but if you provide the required info and no one has replied by tomorrow I'll jump right on it.

                R Offline
                R Offline
                ramdil
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Thanks for the reply .Any way i have decided to change the dll from 05 to 03 and use the 03 dll.Anyway thanks...

                Regards DilipRam

                Z 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • R ramdil

                  Thanks for the reply .Any way i have decided to change the dll from 05 to 03 and use the 03 dll.Anyway thanks...

                  Regards DilipRam

                  Z Offline
                  Z Offline
                  Zoltan Balazs
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  I guess this is what you heard of: Wrapper design pattern.[^] and this is not what you're talking about. Is it?

                  Network integrated solutions A practical use of the MVC pattern

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  Reply
                  • Reply as topic
                  Log in to reply
                  • Oldest to Newest
                  • Newest to Oldest
                  • Most Votes


                  • Login

                  • Don't have an account? Register

                  • Login or register to search.
                  • First post
                    Last post
                  0
                  • Categories
                  • Recent
                  • Tags
                  • Popular
                  • World
                  • Users
                  • Groups