[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.setup

COM DLL compiled under v1.1 won't install under higher version Framework

MacDermott

10/28/2008 8:48:00 PM

I built a DLL in VB.NET, and registered it for COM operation.
I copied it to another machine, where the .NET Framework v2.0 was installed,
and registered it with RegAsm.
It worked fine!
(I then unregistered and deleted it)

Then I built a setup project, so that my users wouldn't have to manually
register it with RegAsm.
When I run the setup project on the target machine, it complains that .NET
Framework v.1.1 isn't installed.

As I understand it, this DLL should be forward compatible -
it should (and seems to) run on any .NET Framwork >=v1.1.
How can I get it to install without requiring the older Framework?

TIA
- Turtle


3 Answers

MacDermott

10/29/2008 6:50:00 PM

0

Thank you for this insight.

I'm pretty sure, though, that my DLL runs just fine under 2.0;
it uses very little more than the cryptography classes.

How can I build an installer which won't prompt for a 1.1 framework when a
higher version is installed?


"xcal" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:OtIte9eOJHA.1144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "> As I understand it, this DLL should be forward compatible -
>> it should (and seems to) run on any .NET Framwork >=v1.1."
>
> I think this is wrong.
>
> I think there are methods in netfx 1.1 that re not used anymore in 2.0,
> due to crash behavior. Likewise 2.0 to 3.0 and so on.
>
> example: I remember vaguely that it is explained that Thread.Resume of 2.0
> leads to situations in wich you cant predict what parts of your code
> belong to a given running thread.
>
> So the conlusion is that your dll can be flawed if it is builded with
> previous
> netfx versions.
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>


Allan McLemore

10/29/2008 6:54:00 PM

0


"> As I understand it, this DLL should be forward compatible -
> it should (and seems to) run on any .NET Framwork >=v1.1."

I think this is wrong.

I think there are methods in netfx 1.1 that re not used anymore in 2.0,
due to crash behavior. Likewise 2.0 to 3.0 and so on.

example: I remember vaguely that it is explained that Thread.Resume of 2.0
leads to situations in wich you cant predict what parts of your code
belong to a given running thread.

So the conlusion is that your dll can be flawed if it is builded with previous
netfx versions.

Carlos.



Phil Wilson

10/31/2008 5:50:00 PM

0

There are dozens of tools for building setups, and most have some way of
specifying the minimum .NET version you need. If you happen to have used VS
2003, I think there's a SupportedRuntimes string in the .NET framework
launchcondition properties. Make that a semi-colon separated list
1.1.4322;2.0.50727. VS 2005 has a different mechanism, AllowLaterVersions I
believe. So it's going to depend what you're using to build your installer.

If you're using a setup.exe launcher that installs prerequisites there'll be
something else in there about prerequisites.

--
Phil Wilson
Definitive Guide to Windows Installer
http://www.apress.com/book/view/...


"MacDermott" <macdermott@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:edPxfcfOJHA.1488@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thank you for this insight.
>
> I'm pretty sure, though, that my DLL runs just fine under 2.0;
> it uses very little more than the cryptography classes.
>
> How can I build an installer which won't prompt for a 1.1 framework when a
> higher version is installed?
>
>
> "xcal" <a@a.com> wrote in message
> news:OtIte9eOJHA.1144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "> As I understand it, this DLL should be forward compatible -
>>> it should (and seems to) run on any .NET Framwork >=v1.1."
>>
>> I think this is wrong.
>>
>> I think there are methods in netfx 1.1 that re not used anymore in 2.0,
>> due to crash behavior. Likewise 2.0 to 3.0 and so on.
>>
>> example: I remember vaguely that it is explained that Thread.Resume of
>> 2.0
>> leads to situations in wich you cant predict what parts of your code
>> belong to a given running thread.
>>
>> So the conlusion is that your dll can be flawed if it is builded with
>> previous
>> netfx versions.
>>
>> Carlos.
>>
>>
>>
>
>