Re: [ros-dev] Ros-dev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 14

[Aleksey Bragin]

I would also support the idea of moving to 3.5, if it allows getting  
rid of "hacks" (pinvokes) in exchange to good code.


WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.


On Oct 14, 2008, at 3:31 PM, gedmurphy wrote:

>   I’m all for using .NET 3.5. I think everyone should be
> using it now.
>
>  I only sent this email because I know some people are stubborn to  
>  change.
>
>
>
>  Rethinking it now though, only devs and testers are really gonna be  
>  using this tool
>
>  If they haven’t upgraded then I wonder what the reason could be. I  
>  can’t really think of a good reason not to.
>
>
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>
>
>
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev- 
>  bounces(a)reactos.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Siejka
>  Sent: 14 October 2008 12:01
>  To: ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Ros-dev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 14
>
>
>
>
>
>  If i may say anything, I dont think its a good idea to force NET  
>  3.5 dependency. It`ll reduce the software usability range as not  
>  everyone is willing to upgrade from NET 2.0
>
>  Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:11:16 +0100
>
>  From: "gedmurphy" <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com>
>  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [gschneider] 36737: RosDbg Part
>         3/3: -  Named pipe implementation based on .net namespace  
>  IO.Pipes      with
>         support of threads - Previous win32 test version would   
>  strip random
>         characters from debug messages and crash on     entering  
>  kdbg (related t
>  To: <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>  Message-ID: <001901c92d1c$083d7770$18b86650$@com>
>  Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
>  I'd originally refrained from doing it this way, using pinvoke  
>  instead to keep .net 2.0 compatibility.
>  Using classes such as NamedPipeServerStream forces a .net 3.5  
>  dependency. Is this ok with everyone?
>
>  Ged.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev