How should I name CSLA .NET for .NET 3.0 support?

How should I name CSLA .NET for .NET 3.0 support?

Old forum URL: forums.lhotka.net/forums/t/1425.aspx

RockfordLhotka posted on Monday, October 09, 2006

Updating CSLA .NET 2.1 to support .NET 3.0 is not a real major change, and should have little to no impact on the use of CSLA .NET itself.

Behind the scenes I need to provide a configuration switch so you can tell CSLA whether to use DataContract-compatible serialization, and there's a new collection interface for WPF data binding that I'll probably implement through a new base class (subclass of BusinessListBase). And of course there'll be the new WpfChannel for the data portal.

What this means is that it should be possible to move a CSLA .NET application to .NET 3.0 without changing any of your code.

So what should I name the version of CSLA .NET that supports .NET 3.0? Given the trivial changes to CSLA and/or your code, it should be a minor release. Yet there's value in keeping CSLA's version number in sync with .NET's version number...

Which would you choose?

[Poll]

Brian Criswell replied on Monday, October 09, 2006

I think there will be less confusion if you keep it synched with .NET.

William replied on Monday, October 09, 2006

In version 3.0, CSLA could be extended to support and facilitate the development of Activity in Windows Workflow Foundation, which is a "kind" of business object. Just a wild idea.
 

glenntoy replied on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

CSLA 2.2

Dawn replied on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

CSLA .NET 2.2

figuerres replied on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

the other stuff, wwf,wpf along with the wcf all total I'd say this is *NOT* a minor update! Big Smile [:D]

but if we can update our apps w/o big breaking chnages then thats awesome great!

CSLA.Net 3.0 for .Net 3.0

CSLA.Net 2.xx for .Net 2.xx

seems clear to me...

Massong replied on Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Maybe a stupid question because of this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/support/relnotes/winfxbeta2/default.aspx

Must I have installed .NET 3.0 to use CSLA 3.0? Or in other words: Will CSLA 3.0 support Windows 2000? We still have some machines running Windows 2000...

ajj3085 replied on Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Search around on the forum, I think Rocky answered this.

I believe his goal is to make Csla 3 work with .Net 2.0, as long as you don't use the WCF data portal channel... but search for the answer, I'm not 100% sure on that.

HTH
Andy

Massong replied on Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Thanks, I found Rocky's answer at: http://forums.lhotka.net/forums/post/6016.aspx

jwooley replied on Wednesday, October 11, 2006

I vote for Csla.Fx (then again, I still think the .Net Framework 3.0 should have stayed WinFx, particularly if it just sits on top of .Net v2.0.50727). Otherwise, if the new CSLA REQUIRES .Net 3.0, call it CSLA 3.0. If the WCF functionality is totally plugable, 2.2 sounds fine (don't give a 2.2 and 3.0 release).

Jim Wooley
http://devauthority.com/blogs/jwooley

jkellywilkerson replied on Thursday, October 12, 2006

I voted for CSLA.NET 3.0 soley based on the fact that Microsoft chose .Net 3.0 for the new release of the .Net Framework.  IMO, it probably should have come in around .Net 2.5; but, it belongs to them and, I guess they can name it whatever they want.  But, in order to head-off any uncertainty about whether this version of CSLA works with what version of the .Net Framework, I think the naming should follow suite; regardless of what Microsoft decides to name their software.

If Microsoft decides in December that .Net 3.0 is not the right fit for their marketing strategy and changes the name again to .Net Framework 2007, then what?

I guess you could also follow the actual version number and start with it; then you would end up with CSLA.NET 2.0.50727.2.1 at this point.  Then everyone would know without a doubt that a particular version of CSLA would work with a certain version of the .Net Framework.

Kelly.

vivus replied on Friday, October 13, 2006

CSLA .Net Fx 2.1

do what microsoft should have done, extend/branch rather than increase the version. 
I.e.   .net 3.0 should have  .net 2.0 Fx  (showing extended functionalty rather than a new version).  

HarvSather replied on Sunday, October 15, 2006

CSLA 3.x

 

SonOfPirate replied on Monday, October 16, 2006

IMO, it all depends on whether or not the new version of CSLA requires .NET 3.0.  If it does, then regardless of how ridiculous it was for Microsoft to mislead us with their naming choice, it would be wise to increment CSLA's major version number as its dependancies have changed.  If this is strictly a set of code changes that won't break existing apps, then go for the minor version increment.  I think this is consistent with traditional versioning standards.

The fact that CSLA's version and .NET's version coincide should be left as a coincidence.  The decision should be based on the impact of the changes, specifically whether it will break existing users' code and whether it will require a different configuration (.NET 3.0) on developer's systems.

Just my 2 cents...

 

DavidDilworth replied on Tuesday, October 17, 2006

FWIW, I've just voted for CSLA.NET 3.0.  The "intent" being to keep the major version number in sync with the .NET framework major version number.

I think this will probably cause least confusion to new members joining the development community and least confusion for IT infrastructure staff that have to install and support the apps.

It should make it easy to answer the question:  "I'm running .NET framework version (1.xx, 2.xx, 3.xx), so which version of the CSLA.NET framework do I need?".

The answer will then (more naturely) be "CSLA.NET 1.xx, CSLA.NET 2.xx or CSLA.NET 3.xx".

Just my two pennies....

Copyright (c) Marimer LLC