should i move to .NET 2.0?

[George Ter-Saakov]

I have a working website on internet written on .NET 1.1
I am thinking about moving my development to .NET 2.0 and do not want to run
both versions on the same server (have only one server). Or using VS 2003
with 2005 simultaneously

So I am thinking about converting my first website to .NET 2.0 (which is
really easy to do)

The question: is .NET 2.0 ready for production? First website is actually
making good money for me and it will be a big deal if server would lock
itself up one in a while.

Is .NET 2.0 as stable as .NET 1.1?
Any known issues?




Thanks
George.

 

[David Wier]

First off - if it's running perfectly and making good money for you -
there's no real reason to switch.
That said - there's no problem with running both versions on one server, and
YES - 2.0 has been ready for production a long time - I've had all my sites
converted to 2.0 for some time and I'll NEVER look back.

My suggestion would be to create a second site, copy the same older code
there, and convert that, to see how many issues you had during
conversion...that's the only thing I could see holding things up (the
conversion)

 

[George Ter-Saakov]

Well, I do not want to use 2 development tools as well. It's really starts
to mess up my head . The first website still going through improvement all
the time.
So that is another reason to convert.

I actually already had converted (just did not updated server yet) and had
no issues except one
in NET 2.0
Response.Filter.Write(aTmp, 0, aTmp.Length) now throws an exception when
aTmp is 0 length array.

..NET 1.1 simply did not do anything.

thanks for the info.
George.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Hard to say. .Net 2.0 is superior to .Net 1.1 in many ways. However, with
the advent of Vista and the .Net platform 3.0, it would probably be better
to save yourself the trouble of 2 upgrades, wait a bit longer (maybe a
year), and upgrade to .Net 3.0.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

The devil is in the yada yada yada

 

[Guest]

"NET 1.1 simply did not do anything."
Correct. In .NET 2.0, any unhandled exception will cause your application to
quit and the appDomain to unload. That is good, because in 1.1 you could have
an application that "seemed" to still be running, but was actually in a
completely unusable state.
Bottom line- handle the exception with better coding logic.
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi,

Hard to say. .Net 2.0 is superior to .Net 1.1 in many ways. However, with
the advent of Vista and the .Net platform 3.0, it would probably be better
to save yourself the trouble of 2 upgrades, wait a bit longer (maybe a
year), and upgrade to .Net 3.0.

No. .NET 3.0 will not replace .NET 2.0. It's a marketing name. .NET 3.0
consists of additional libraries which are installed on top of .NET 2.0.
These libraries allow programming WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation),
WCF (Windows Communication Foundation), WWF (Windows Workflow
Foundation) and Cardspace.

For more info about .NET 3.0:
http://www.netfx3.com/

You should move to .NET 2.0 unless you have good reasons to stay with
..NET 1.1.

..NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over 1.1. Additionally, if you want to
stay on top of the game, you got to move with the flow, and learn the
newer technologies as they come.

HTH,
Laurent

 

[Kevin Spencer]

You'll notice that I didn't mention .Net 3.0 alone as a reason, but Vista as
well. This was why I recommended waiting a year.

You're entitled to your opinion, Laurent, but "No" is a bit overbearing
regarding an opinion.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

The devil is in the yada yada yada

 

[George Ter-Saakov]

When I said did not do anything.
I meant that even exception was not thrown. It just did not output anything
which is correct since array has zero length.


George

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi Kevin,

You'll notice that I didn't mention .Net 3.0 alone as a reason, but Vista as
well. This was why I recommended waiting a year.

You're entitled to your opinion, Laurent, but "No" is a bit overbearing
regarding an opinion.

Sorry for the "no". You're right.

The reason I reacted to your post is that it makes .NET 3.0 sound like
an upgrade to .NET 2.0, in the same way that .NET 2.0 is an upgrade to
..NET 1.1. However, it's not. I think that Microsoft's naming policy is
confusing enough in that matter

HTH and sorry,
Laurent

 

[Guest]

Regardless, it is still good defensive coding practice to check if aTmp is
zero length or null before attempting to use it in the next line of code, yes?
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Thanks much, Laurent. At any rate, between the two of us, and the rest of
the responses, I'm sure that the OP has some good food for thought!

--
,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

The devil is in the yada yada yada

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks much, Laurent. At any rate, between the two of us, and the rest of
the responses, I'm sure that the OP has some good food for thought!

Good that Microsoft has us to correct their marketing "errors" ;-)

Just kidding,
Laurent