[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

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


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.sdk

Framework 1.0 to 1.1 conversion

Luc Bisson

11/4/2003 1:51:00 AM

Hi all,

We are using Framework 1.0 for all our ASP.NET and Windows application
projects.

We plan on going to Framework 1.1.

On MSDN, they say that for Windows application, we have to add a section in
the configuration file so the application will be forced to use the 1.1
framework.

For an ASP.NET Application, on installing, the 1.1 Framwork, the ISAPI
filter will automatically change to the 1.1 filter at the root of IIS. So,
by default, the ASP.NET will use the new framework if not told different on
the web site level.

But what about a class library project or assemblies that are in the GAC?
Is there a way for those components to use the 1.1 framework and not having
them to be recompiled with VS 2003?

Since those components doesn't have a configuration file and are using a
strongly typed name is there a way to tell those components to use 1.1?

Thank's for any idea.


3 Answers

Michael Giagnocavo

11/4/2003 2:04:00 AM

0

Please don't multi-post. Cross-post if necesary, but don't repeat questions
in other NGs, since we can't all follow the thread. (I've already responded
in the mspub.dotnet.framework NG).
Thanks,
-mike
MVP

"Luc Bisson" <luc.bisson@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:%23zJOHYnoDHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>
> We are using Framework 1.0 for all our ASP.NET and Windows application
> projects.
>
> We plan on going to Framework 1.1.
>
> On MSDN, they say that for Windows application, we have to add a section
in
> the configuration file so the application will be forced to use the 1.1
> framework.
>
> For an ASP.NET Application, on installing, the 1.1 Framwork, the ISAPI
> filter will automatically change to the 1.1 filter at the root of IIS.
So,
> by default, the ASP.NET will use the new framework if not told different
on
> the web site level.
>
> But what about a class library project or assemblies that are in the GAC?
> Is there a way for those components to use the 1.1 framework and not
having
> them to be recompiled with VS 2003?
>
> Since those components doesn't have a configuration file and are using a
> strongly typed name is there a way to tell those components to use 1.1?
>
> Thank's for any idea.
>
>


Zulu

1/31/2009 4:18:00 PM

0

Roger escribi?:
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Zulu wrote
> in message <49832995$1@news.x-privat.org>:
>
>> Roger escribi?:
>
>>>>>>>>> If course, Pressac goes on to say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The discrepancy between the numbers of this drawing and its date is an
>>>>>>>>> indication that the members of the Bauleitung, who had completed the
>>>>>>>>> study for the new Krematorium at the main camp only on 28th January
>>>>>>>>> 1942, with a complete series of drawings (932, 933, 934, 935, 936,
>>>>>>>>> 937, 938), had been caught unprepared by the decision made on 27th
>>>>>>>>> February 1942 to transfer the building to Birkenau where the nature of
>>>>>>>>> the land was different. Pushed for time, they used the drawings from
>>>>>>>>> their earlier study, making the absolute minimum of changes and not
>>>>>>>>> even bothering to change the dates and some of the numbers on the
>>>>>>>>> original identification blocks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IOW, the drawing does not accurately reflect the room as it was built.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Funny that you skipped that part of the page...
>
>>>>>>>> And, Does it change something in the ventilation system?
>
>>>>>>> Then ventilation system as described by witnesses in a position to
>>>>>>> know was sufficient to the task.
>
>>>>>> LOL, should eyewitnesses proved to be LIARS be considered more credible than
>>>>>> documents and material proofs?
>
>>>>> Which eyewitnesses are you referring to?
>
>>>> Vrba first, than all so-called sonderkommandos who assumed that the operations had
>>>> been performed under "SECRECY".
>
>>> Vrba did not testify regarding the ventilation, so what is your point?
>
>> You are a moron, indeed. The topic is eyewitnesses which supported the "gas chambers"
>> hoax.
>
> No, the topic is very specifically those witnesses who were in a
> position to know documenting that the ventilation system was
> sufficient to the task.
>
>
>> Pressac told first that the ventilation was wrong. I never connected eyewitnesses
>> with the appreciation of the system but with the absurd density of the victims into
>> the room (9.5 to 14.2 per square meter!!!). Such absurd density and the supposed
>> resulting mass of fallen corpses near the floor provoked the obstruction of the air
>> entrance openings. No air entrance, no ventilation.
>
> And no proof that the ventilation system was not sufficient to the
> task.
>
>>>> MOre the ones of whom the testimony were posted here by McVay and I debunked like
>>>> Pery Broad or MIKLOS NYISZLI...
>>>>
>>>> If you have more, so put it.
>
>>> Which eyewitnesses testified that the ventilation was wrong?
>
>> Idiot.
>
> Ah, you have none, then.
>
>>>>>> That is all about it for that "gas chambers" HOAX, only tales sustains it.
>
>>>>> No, *complete* documents do, as well.
>
>>>> WOW, which ones?
>
>>> For example, the documentation regarding the Hungarian Jews.
>
>> LOL, they don't prove that they were gassed.
>
> Moving the goal posts?
>
>> Another try?
>
> If you'd like to give it another try, go ahead -- but you'd probably
> be better off cutting your losses.
>
>>>>>> The Leichenkeller 1 at Krema II is almost INTACT to be analyzed, idiot.
>>>>>> Why is not that elementary job already made by those so called "serious scholars"?
>
>>>>> Why do you lie that it has not been?
>
>>>> About the points I mentioned?
>
>>> The point you mentioned was that analysis of Krema II has not been
>>> done.
>
>> I never told that,
>
> Look five lines up, exclusive of white space.
>
>> however it is sure that the first who has done a forensic job
>> there was Leucthter and not the exterminationists.
>
> No, it is not sure. You, like leuchter, need to do your homework.
>

DIversion...
WHO MADE THE JOB I MENTIONED, MORON.

Roger

2/1/2009 3:03:00 PM

0

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Zulu wrote
in message <49847996$1@news.x-privat.org>:

>Roger escribi?:

>>>>>>>>>> If course, Pressac goes on to say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The discrepancy between the numbers of this drawing and its date is an
>>>>>>>>>> indication that the members of the Bauleitung, who had completed the
>>>>>>>>>> study for the new Krematorium at the main camp only on 28th January
>>>>>>>>>> 1942, with a complete series of drawings (932, 933, 934, 935, 936,
>>>>>>>>>> 937, 938), had been caught unprepared by the decision made on 27th
>>>>>>>>>> February 1942 to transfer the building to Birkenau where the nature of
>>>>>>>>>> the land was different. Pushed for time, they used the drawings from
>>>>>>>>>> their earlier study, making the absolute minimum of changes and not
>>>>>>>>>> even bothering to change the dates and some of the numbers on the
>>>>>>>>>> original identification blocks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IOW, the drawing does not accurately reflect the room as it was built.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny that you skipped that part of the page...

>>>>>>>>> And, Does it change something in the ventilation system?

>>>>>>>> Then ventilation system as described by witnesses in a position to
>>>>>>>> know was sufficient to the task.

>>>>>>> LOL, should eyewitnesses proved to be LIARS be considered more credible than
>>>>>>> documents and material proofs?

>>>>>> Which eyewitnesses are you referring to?

>>>>> Vrba first, than all so-called sonderkommandos who assumed that the operations had
>>>>> been performed under "SECRECY".

>>>> Vrba did not testify regarding the ventilation, so what is your point?

>>> You are a moron, indeed. The topic is eyewitnesses which supported the "gas chambers"
>>> hoax.

>> No, the topic is very specifically those witnesses who were in a
>> position to know documenting that the ventilation system was
>> sufficient to the task.

One realizes, of course, why you are so desperate to distract from
this fact.

>>> Pressac told first that the ventilation was wrong. I never connected eyewitnesses
>>> with the appreciation of the system but with the absurd density of the victims into
>>> the room (9.5 to 14.2 per square meter!!!). Such absurd density and the supposed
>>> resulting mass of fallen corpses near the floor provoked the obstruction of the air
>>> entrance openings. No air entrance, no ventilation.

>> And no proof that the ventilation system was not sufficient to the
>> task.

One needn't wonder why "zulu" continues to lie about it.

>>>>> MOre the ones of whom the testimony were posted here by McVay and I debunked like
>>>>> Pery Broad or MIKLOS NYISZLI...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have more, so put it.

>>>> Which eyewitnesses testified that the ventilation was wrong?

>>> Idiot.

>> Ah, you have none, then.

One needn't wonder why "zulu" continues to lie about it.

>>>>>>> That is all about it for that "gas chambers" HOAX, only tales sustains it.

>>>>>> No, *complete* documents do, as well.

>>>>> WOW, which ones?

>>>> For example, the documentation regarding the Hungarian Jews.

>>> LOL, they don't prove that they were gassed.

>> Moving the goal posts?

>>> Another try?

>> If you'd like to give it another try, go ahead -- but you'd probably
>> be better off cutting your losses.

>>>>>>> The Leichenkeller 1 at Krema II is almost INTACT to be analyzed, idiot.
>>>>>>> Why is not that elementary job already made by those so called "serious scholars"?

>>>>>> Why do you lie that it has not been?

>>>>> About the points I mentioned?

>>>> The point you mentioned was that analysis of Krema II has not been
>>>> done.

>>> I never told that,

>> Look five lines up, exclusive of white space.

You know, where you wrote, "Why is not that elementary job already
made by those so called 'serious scholars?'"

Certainly makes it seem like you were saying that analysis had not
been done by serious scholars.

>>> however it is sure that the first who has done a forensic job
>>> there was Leucthter and not the exterminationists.

>> No, it is not sure. You, like leuchter, need to do your homework.

>DIversion...
>WHO MADE THE JOB I MENTIONED, MORON.

"Serious scholars" did, despite your lies to the contrary.