[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.sdk

Standards

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 4:21:00 PM

Hi,

What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the BCLs?

Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard" and
everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS specific and in
general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific classes.

Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it be not
very portable and therefore should belong under the Microsoft.* namespace?

Thanks
12 Answers

Rob Tillie

8/21/2003 7:34:00 PM

0

You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
http://msdn.microsoft.com...

Mainly the CLR and the System namespace I believe.
Well, Mono is trying to get an exact behaviour in porting almost any
namespace, wo that shouldn''t be a problem.

Greetz,
-- Rob.

Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the
> BCLs?
>
> Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard" and
> everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS specific and
> in general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific classes.
>
> Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it be
> not very portable and therefore should belong under the Microsoft.*
> namespace?
>
> Thanks

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 8:00:00 PM

0

My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths, P/Invoke
to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less compatible).
That to me indicates NON STANDARD.


"Rob Tillie" <Rob.Tillie@student.tul.edu> wrote in message
news:#36KqsBaDHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com...
>
> Mainly the CLR and the System namespace I believe.
> Well, Mono is trying to get an exact behaviour in porting almost any
> namespace, wo that shouldn''t be a problem.
>
> Greetz,
> -- Rob.
>
> Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the
> > BCLs?
> >
> > Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard" and
> > everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS specific and
> > in general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific classes.
> >
> > Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it be
> > not very portable and therefore should belong under the Microsoft.*
> > namespace?
> >
> > Thanks
>
>

Peter Vidler

8/21/2003 8:14:00 PM

0

Hi,

Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.

Standards are not the problem (not the only problem, anyway). There is quite
a lot of Windows Forms functionality that requires P/Invoke or WndProc
overrides to get to. These cannot be compatible with linux (they use builtin
windows dll''s or procedures). This is why wine is the best way to go atm for
compatibility.

Pete

Carl Daniel [MVP]

8/21/2003 9:26:00 PM

0

AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.

-cd

Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.
>
>
> "Rob Tillie" <Rob.Tillie@student.tul.edu> wrote in message
> news:#36KqsBaDHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com...
>>
>> Mainly the CLR and the System namespace I believe.
>> Well, Mono is trying to get an exact behaviour in porting almost any
>> namespace, wo that shouldn''t be a problem.
>>
>> Greetz,
>> -- Rob.
>>
>> Umpa Lumpa wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the
>>> BCLs?
>>>
>>> Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard"
>>> and everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS
>>> specific and in general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific
>>> classes.
>>>
>>> Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it
>>> be not very portable and therefore should belong under the
>>> Microsoft.* namespace?
>>>
>>> Thanks

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 9:49:00 PM

0

Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not Microsoft.*?


"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OvsPirCaDHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.
>
> -cd
>
> Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> > My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> > P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> > compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.
> >
> >
> > "Rob Tillie" <Rob.Tillie@student.tul.edu> wrote in message
> > news:#36KqsBaDHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> You can look at ISO and ECMA in the specs what is standardized.
> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com...
> >>
> >> Mainly the CLR and the System namespace I believe.
> >> Well, Mono is trying to get an exact behaviour in porting almost any
> >> namespace, wo that shouldn''t be a problem.
> >>
> >> Greetz,
> >> -- Rob.
> >>
> >> Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> What is the status on the "standardization" (outside MS) of the
> >>> BCLs?
> >>>
> >>> Is everything under the System namespace going to be "standard"
> >>> and everything under the Microsoft namespace custom per MS
> >>> specific and in general Vendor.* namespaces for vendor specific
> >>> classes.
> >>>
> >>> Is WinForms etc planned to be part of this "standard" or will it
> >>> be not very portable and therefore should belong under the
> >>> Microsoft.* namespace?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
>
>

Carl Daniel [MVP]

8/21/2003 9:53:00 PM

0

Wild guess -

Because the hierarchy of namespaces was put together before the decision to
submit the BCL and CLR to ECMA was finalized. I suppose they could have
chosen the typical Java solution - duplicate everything into another
namespace and deprecate it in the System namespace, while retaining it
forever for backwards compatibility.

-cd

Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> Then why the heck are they under the System.* namespace and not
> Microsoft.*?
>
>
> "Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:OvsPirCaDHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> AFIAK, the ECMA standards do not in any way cover Winforms.

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 9:54:00 PM

0

So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
(ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?

Recipe for disaster

"Peter Vidler" <pvidler@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:FM91b.498$Dg4.214906@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> > My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> > P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> > compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.
>
> Standards are not the problem (not the only problem, anyway). There is
quite
> a lot of Windows Forms functionality that requires P/Invoke or WndProc
> overrides to get to. These cannot be compatible with linux (they use
builtin
> windows dll''s or procedures). This is why wine is the best way to go atm
for
> compatibility.
>
> Pete
>
>

Willy Denoyette

8/21/2003 9:54:00 PM

0

Umpa Lumpa wrote:
|| So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the
|| Microsoft.* (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
||
|| Recipe for disaster
||

Please take some time and read the standard documents. The standard defines profiles and libraries,namespace names are not part of
the standard.

Willy.

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 10:03:00 PM

0

I suggest they change it or make it portable.



"Umpa Lumpa" <postmaster@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:e1Ixa3CaDHA.2476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
> (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
>
> Recipe for disaster
>
> "Peter Vidler" <pvidler@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:FM91b.498$Dg4.214906@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> > > My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> > > P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> > > compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.
> >
> > Standards are not the problem (not the only problem, anyway). There is
> quite
> > a lot of Windows Forms functionality that requires P/Invoke or WndProc
> > overrides to get to. These cannot be compatible with linux (they use
> builtin
> > windows dll''s or procedures). This is why wine is the best way to go atm
> for
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

Umpa Lumpa

8/21/2003 10:04:00 PM

0

Then again what is to stop somebody implementing a method by method feature
by feature replacemetn that IS portable as System.WinForms.blah .dll?


"Umpa Lumpa" <postmaster@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:e1Ixa3CaDHA.2476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> So why the heck are they in teh System.* namespace and NOT the Microsoft.*
> (ie., VendorSpecific.* ) namespaces?
>
> Recipe for disaster
>
> "Peter Vidler" <pvidler@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:FM91b.498$Dg4.214906@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Umpa Lumpa wrote:
> > > My concern is WinForms etc because on MONO that is taking 2 paths,
> > > P/Invoke to win32 (and therefore WINE dependant) and GTK# (but less
> > > compatible). That to me indicates NON STANDARD.
> >
> > Standards are not the problem (not the only problem, anyway). There is
> quite
> > a lot of Windows Forms functionality that requires P/Invoke or WndProc
> > overrides to get to. These cannot be compatible with linux (they use
> builtin
> > windows dll''s or procedures). This is why wine is the best way to go atm
> for
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>