Do I need to release .NET 3.5 SP1 to all users?
-
I was really hoping for a little assistance as most people here at CP are helpful versus just sarcastic... That said, I guess what I am really asking is this... If I (A) install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine to take advantage of the supposed VS2008 performance fixes, (B) recompile my application "as-is" (ie making no changes specific to anything in SP1), and (C) deploy the app to my users who still have the "basic" .NET 3.5 framework, will it work? Thanks... Steve
From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed. When it does, exception will be thrown (missing function). I don't know how much of this is help, cause I can't prove it will work the same way everywhere. But after my app crashed once, I ordered my client to download update and don't whine :P.
-
OK, this may be a somewhat dumb question but I haven't found a definitive answer yet so I thought I'd try here. I currently have a client/server WinForms app developed using .NET 3.5 framework. So all my users have .NET 3.5 installed on their PCs along with the application. I would like to install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine, basically since it's supposed to solve a lot of performance issues with VS2008. However, do I need to have all the users upgrade to .NET 3.5 SP1 as well? That will be a major effort that I don't want to do at this time. So if I'm required to re-deploy .NET 3.5 SP1 to all users in order to run an application developed using SP1, I'll hold off with upgrading my development machine, otherwise I'll press. Thanks in advance... Steve
Sp1 contains two types of stuff. 1) New libraries (e.g. the entity framework). Provided you don't go using these, it won't matter that your users don't have them. You will need to be very careful to make sure you don't accidentally use some new sp1 functionality that your users don't have. 2) CLR improvements. (e.g. various performance improvements to WPF loading times etc). It doesn't matter that your assembly is compiled against 3.5 SP1 on your PC, it will still work on a PC with just plain old 3.5, but you just won't see any of the improvements. So in theory it should work fine, but as with anything in development, I wouldn't bet your life on it. The best way forward is probably to ensure you test thoroughly on a 3.5 pc without sp1 before deploying it to your users.
Simon
-
I was really hoping for a little assistance as most people here at CP are helpful versus just sarcastic... That said, I guess what I am really asking is this... If I (A) install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine to take advantage of the supposed VS2008 performance fixes, (B) recompile my application "as-is" (ie making no changes specific to anything in SP1), and (C) deploy the app to my users who still have the "basic" .NET 3.5 framework, will it work? Thanks... Steve
PSU Steve wrote:
versus just sarcastic...
There was nothing sarcastic about my response, I was dead serious. So fuck off asshole Ok, look I might have been unfair........ to everyone you currently work with and anyone you might work with in the future. For all of those peoples sake you should look at this[^].
modified on Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:33 AM
-
I was really hoping for a little assistance as most people here at CP are helpful versus just sarcastic... That said, I guess what I am really asking is this... If I (A) install .NET 3.5 SP1 on my development machine to take advantage of the supposed VS2008 performance fixes, (B) recompile my application "as-is" (ie making no changes specific to anything in SP1), and (C) deploy the app to my users who still have the "basic" .NET 3.5 framework, will it work? Thanks... Steve
The definitive answer is "Maybe". No, I'm not kidding around. You're going to have to recompile the app under SP1, then install it on a machine without SP1 on it and test it. It's that simple! It's the ONLY way you're going to get the DEFINITIVE answer. "led mike" was correct in every way, only YOU can answer that question: "will your app work??" You're not going to know until YOU test it, and that testing is not limited to strictly functionality. The other question you have to answer is performance. Sure, the app may work, but does it do so with acceptable performance??
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008 -
The definitive answer is "Maybe". No, I'm not kidding around. You're going to have to recompile the app under SP1, then install it on a machine without SP1 on it and test it. It's that simple! It's the ONLY way you're going to get the DEFINITIVE answer. "led mike" was correct in every way, only YOU can answer that question: "will your app work??" You're not going to know until YOU test it, and that testing is not limited to strictly functionality. The other question you have to answer is performance. Sure, the app may work, but does it do so with acceptable performance??
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008 -
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
"led mike" was correct in every way
Holy frack! What's next, hell freezing over? :laugh: I don't know if I can resist making that my sig. :-\
You could always extend this to "led mike" providing correct solutions since 2006.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
"led mike" was correct in every way
Holy frack! What's next, hell freezing over? :laugh: I don't know if I can resist making that my sig. :-\
:laugh: Did I stroke your ego a little too much there? :laugh:
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008 -
You could always extend this to "led mike" providing correct solutions since 2006.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed. When it does, exception will be thrown (missing function). I don't know how much of this is help, cause I can't prove it will work the same way everywhere. But after my app crashed once, I ordered my client to download update and don't whine :P.
Ravadre wrote:
From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed.
Are there any automated programs that can take an .exe and determine whether it references any functions that don't exist in particular versions of .net? To be sure, it would be possible for a program that references a function only found in a later .net version to work with earlier ones if the function is never actually executed, but outside of code specifically written to handle different versions of .net (e.g. try using the new version of a function and set a flag based upon whether it works; if it doesn't work, use the old one instead) I would think the list of functions referenced would correspond strongly to the list of functions required.
-
Ravadre wrote:
From my experience, yes it will work, but sp1 adds few functions, if you ship program that uses one of those, it will work as long as this function won't be executed.
Are there any automated programs that can take an .exe and determine whether it references any functions that don't exist in particular versions of .net? To be sure, it would be possible for a program that references a function only found in a later .net version to work with earlier ones if the function is never actually executed, but outside of code specifically written to handle different versions of .net (e.g. try using the new version of a function and set a flag based upon whether it works; if it doesn't work, use the old one instead) I would think the list of functions referenced would correspond strongly to the list of functions required.