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@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@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.
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@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Siejka Sent: 14 October 2008 12:01 To: ros-dev@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@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@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.
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@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev- bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Siejka Sent: 14 October 2008 12:01 To: ros-dev@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@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@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev