Even more on .NET Framework 3.0...
I wanted to respond to a few comments..
Keeron asked about what .NET Framework includes exactly. JasonZ does a good job with this one..
The Linq support for C# (and VB for that mater) is scheduled for Orcas... We have not locked on a final version number, my hunch will be “.NET Framework 3.5”
We do actually have a merged Windows SDK that includes all of the content as of .NET Framework 3.0\Vista...
George asks about SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0... Again the details have not been 100% worked out, so don’t take this as an official statement, but I expect SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0 to be at the same time as Orcas .NET Framework ships. For servicing releases we generally do not change the assembly version number at all (this makes it an in place update) and only update the win32 version number by the number of builds it took us to get there. So short answer is no, the core components will not have their version numbers reset.
I certainly agree with you George on driving simplicity here... That is why I’d push folks to simply talk about if an application requires .NET Framework 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 or 3.5 and not delve deeply into how those are actually put together.
Jvierra – we are absolutely looking spending some time on getting great factoring and layering with in the .NET Framework. Today, we don’t have a system that is as pluggable as we’d like (and you describe), but that is the direction we would eventually like to get to.. However it will likely not happen for the orcas timeframe.
Philip – I sure hope we don’t end up in a world like you describe. My strong advice is for customers to simply state the minium .NET Framework version number they support. There is never a need to talk about “.NET Framework 2.0 with .NET Framework 3.0 frameworks”... It will be more clear to customers, admins, developers, etc to simply say “this application requires .NET Framework 3.0”
Dennis – We needed the name change from WinFX to .NET Framework to drive some simplicity with developer customers. I personally spent time with customers where I had to explain the difference between .NET Framework and WinFX.. This confusion was caused by our naming and I am confident it is addressed now.
Chris Nahr – Thanks, I fixed the type-o ;-)
You are right – the packaging issue has nothing to do with the name. This packaging plan was exactly the plan before we did the name change. The name change is intended to make it clear how these new technologies relate to the .NET Framework – that is that the constitute a new version of it.
We are working on our factoring and layering to enable the system to be more pluggable such that different parts can change without breaking other parts. In Orcas, we are making some baby steps in that direction. For example we are adding Linq support to C# and VB without a breaking change and without a requiring a full stack update.
Jonathan Kaufman – I am trying with this post.. Keep the questions coming.. they really do help us hone what we are doing here. I LOVE forwarding my reader’s comments around inside Microsoft as a catalyst for change!
Muhammad Mosa – asked about VSTS and VS generally. While there is clearly a TON of synergy between .NET Framework and VS, one release does not have to require another. Look at .NET Framework 3.0, it does not require a new VS release. And on the other side, look at VSTS new Data SKU we just announced, it does not require a new framework.
Hope this helps – keep the comments coming!
Comments
- Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Brad, thanks for taking the time to clear up some of the confusion out there, but I am still confused :).
Let's say I have installed 1.1 and 2.0 currently on my system and am running my ASP.NET website off of 2.0. After I install .NET Framework 3.0, will I see a new option 3.0 in IIS. Based on what I read from your original entry I won't see a new option. WPF and WCF use .NET 2.0 underneath and only they will have version no. 3.0. Is that going to continue in future versions also or are you guys trying to make it such that the entire stack will have one version moving forward starting orcas.
I really hope you guys keep it to one version e.g. 3.5 or 4.0 where ASP.NET / WPF / WCF and everything in the framework share the same version number even though there are no updates for may be one of them. That way it will keep the versioning simple for us developers who work on ASP.NET + WCF + WPF.
Thanks,
Vaibhav - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
To second Vaibhav's question - what is the smallest versioning unit you will use?
The 3.0 release of the framework, if I understood it correctly, contains the 2.0 release of the compilers, 2.0 release of the CLR, and a mix of 2.0 and 3.0 libraries in the BCL.
Will this mixed version stay in the final release of v3.0? Will the current libraries be patched to v3.0 as well (incorporating the v2.0 SP1 in the process) or will we still have some namespaces versioned differently than others? - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
PingBack from http://christianotto.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/net-30-features-future/ - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Thanks for your reply, Brad. I'm happy to hear that LINQ & Co. won't require a new installation of .NET plus WinFX. I'm still doubtful that rebranding WinFX was a good idea but I guess we'll see the reaction when the final version is rolled out... - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Go off the grid to enjoy a weekend of blue skys and 30c and this little number roles in (oh and the scoble... - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Another question: Doesn't this imply that you won't be able to develop what was formerly know as .Net and WinFX on different schedules? Essentially you now have to align releases of the two, or create an even bigger name/version mess. Is that really a good idea?!? I thought you guys want to get more agile, but packaging more and more stuff into less release packages doesn't seem a good idea to achieve that. Lets say the next major release of what was known as WinFX needs six more months than the next major release of what was known as .Net. That would imply that you have to hold back the .Net stuff, right?
Gee, the more I think about this, the more I get the impression that this is NOT only a branding thing, but has much wider implications. - Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Kirk Allen Evans has the best explanation so far of what comprises the .NET Framework 3.0. It can be... - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
El vicepresidente Somasegar, ha anunciado recientemente algunas de las guías a seguir en lo que se... - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
I think delaying the first service pack for the 2.0 framework is a HORRIBLE decision. The 2.0 release was just like any X.0 release, it had significant issues that simply didn't appear, or the fix didn't make the deadline for release but these fixes should be released ASAP. Tying them to the Orcas release is wrong... it sends the message "your pains aren't important until they impeed OUR releases". How many hotfixes have been made for internal MS customers (like for TFS or Altas or ACT?).
In short, release the "1st quarter, for sure" service pack! - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Brad, at both PDC 2003 and PDC 2005 WinFX was described as the heir apparent to Win32 - hence the name WinFX. Can you clarify what the situation is WRT .NET becoming the successor to Win32? Is that still the plan or with the whole Vista mulligan fiasco, has Microsoft backed off that plan such that .NET remains just a "development platform" ala VB6/MFC/ATL/etc for the forseeable future? Based on what we were told at both of those PDCs, I think Microsoft owes it to us to clearly state what the plans are for the successor to Win32. And if it is that managed code won't take over as the preferred OS API anytime soon then fine. But let's not sweep this under the rug and hope developers forget what they were told. - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Good feedback -- keep it comming!
Vaibhav - First off, this name change is purely a marketing level thing... nothing technical changes because of it. So the answer for .NET Framework 3.0 is the same as it is under the WinFX plan. No, you will not see a new 3.0 option under IIS for ASP.NET, because ASP.NET did not rev with this release. While the future plans have not been locked down yet, I’d suspect that we will eventually have a “full stack” release again, but in the short-mid term leveraging the deployment level investments our customers have made in 2.0 will remain an important goal. I understand the desire around cleanliness to have only one version number, but are there deeper concerns? Look at your windows install.. different DLLs have different version numbers there.
Avener – Technically the smallest unit of versioning is the assembly. I suspect we will not get that fine grained... What is the problem you feel like you will run into with mis-matched version numbers? Just like you think of all of windows as one release or another, think of all of the .NET Framework as one release or another... Don’t worry about how it happens to be implemented. If there are places this breaks down, I’d love to hear it!
Kevin – You have a good question about how to determine what version of the framework is installed. We are actively working on guidance around that – stay tuned!
Davidacoder – I generally agree with the way you break the problem down... My worry with the “2.x” version number scheme is that it does not allow enough room for innovation in the frameworks moving forward.. As far as agility goes, nothing about this name change affects that.. these products were always tied. I do think you are right that we need to make room for regular cadence of releases... that will mean some parts of the platform change while others don’t.
Jonathan – You have a good point about the need to educate people on the benefits of the .NET Framework 3.0 release.. that is it is purely additive to those that have .NET Framework 2.0... I hope that educating the key influencers like yourselves is the first step there...
Marc – I’d love to hear your specific concerns with .NET Framework 2.0... As you may know, we do regularly release QFEs (or targeted fixes of the .NET Framework to customers that have specific issues). Will that meet your needs? - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Keith --- Good point on the successor to Win32... While we have certainly learned A LOT about correct factoring, layering and dependency management with the Longhorn project. One thing remains unchanged... for mainstream applications managed code continues to be the best environment. Just like we advise our customers in dealing with their own current investments, Microsoft is not going rip-and-replace the Win32 APIs or our massive investments Win32 based code (in Office & the windows shell for example). However it is safe to say the bulk of the innovation going forward is in managed code and that the .NET Framework is the future of the platform. - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Yup, I totally agree with you Brad, that it does not make sense to recompile the entire stack for V.3.0 and I think people can live with it for the coming version. My comment on having a unified version number is to keep things simple, nothing more, for releases following V.3.0. The very statement that V.3.0 is going to use the CLR V.2.0 is confusing to some people including me. Although I understand what it means, something still does not sound right, but then it could be just me. - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Hmm, I would have thought a new name something like .NET 2.0+ or something would have been a good indicator that winfx is a set of libraries that run on top of 2.0. But ultimately I'm a pretty passive developer so I'll just take it as it comes I suppose. ;) - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
As most of you know already, Soma Somasegar, announced last week that the WinFx has been rechristned... - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Here we go again Java 2.0 is not really Java 2.0. When will you learn from history!!!!! - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
"However it is safe to say the bulk of the innovation going forward is in managed code and that the .NET Framework is the future of the platform. "
Brad, thanks for clarifying that! - Anonymous
June 12, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 13, 2006
There's a good discussion on Brad Abrams blog.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/06/11/627128.asp... - Anonymous
June 13, 2006
It is a fantastic idea to re-brand WinFX as a new version of .NET Framework but I still believe that it should be called .NET Framework 2.x (say 2.5) to highlight its reliance on CLR 2.0 and the existing BCL and CLS.
This way you could use 3.0 for C# 3.0, LINQ and other new features that may require a new CLR and more changes to the existing base classes in ADO.NET for instance. - Anonymous
June 13, 2006
PingBack from http://www.hatim.net/2006/06/13/more-on-the-net-framework-30/ - Anonymous
June 13, 2006
Brad, I have also posted this on Some's blog:
How about dropping the complete name ".NET Framework"? I don't remember having the same problems with "The Windows DNA Framework" as there was not really a product named "The Windows DNA framework", it was a conceptual name for a set of technologies (ASP, COM+, MSMQ, MTS ...).
I vote therefore for dropping the marketing product ".NET Framework" as we all know it and instead split everyting up into seperate products. That way there will be no confusion.
What happens now if there is only a new version of WPF and the other technologies did not change? Will it then be labelled .NET Framework n + 1?
Imho the core is the most important (CLR and BCL) and the rest are façades built using the core which in theory we could built ourselves and therefore they should not be so tightly coupled together under the name .NET Framework. - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
It would have been great if Microsoft released .Net 3.0 with Linq, and other features basically with C# 3.0 and put everything WCF,WF,WPF with it. That would not only eliminate the confusion but also would achieve what microsoft wants by putting together wcf, and all. - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
The announcement of .NET Framework 3.0 previously dubber WinFX is definitely confusing. Microsoft is... - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
The announcement of .NET Framework 3.0 previously dubbed WinFX is definitely confusing. Microsoft is... - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
Like to see the progress of .NET and Vista but I think that you need the marketing team thinking in a new name or in an add for the .NET 2.0 like .NET 2.0++ or something like that. BUT DON´T CALL IT .NET 3.0 !!!
There is no major upgrade in the framework right ? near none ? so simply don´t call it 3.0.
BTW I think that for the .NET developers is really important the SP1 for VS2005 and SP1 for .NET 2.0. In big applications or simply using the edit and continue in VB.NET VS2005 hands up 2 of 5 times !
Anyway keep the good work, I LOVE .NET but I preffer stability than inovation (at last my customers like the first one)
I know how hard must be creating Vista and all the new development plataforms but don't forget the big number of developers that are trying to explain to their boss why them are restarting VS2005 or redoing the work because VS hand ups... is not a happy scenario !!
Best Regards - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
Straight from the other side of the globe, Roy Osherove brings us information from Joe Binder of the... - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
"George asks about SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0... Again the details have not been 100% worked out, so don’t take this as an official statement, but I expect SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0 to be at the same time as Orcas .NET Framework ships."
Unacceptable. Orcas is slated for 2007, and .NET 2.0 needs a service pack in 2006. This is also promissed by Mr. Somasegar, and I fail to see how we all will write better software if microsoft just keeps sitting on their patches for years. - Anonymous
June 14, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
WILL VISTA INCLUDE .NET 1.1 AS WELL?? - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
Brad -
My great excitement is that you ARE attempting to make it that pluggable. Timeframes are not important for anything that overarching. Just keep on doing what you are doing. It is making life more predictable with each release and will ultimately, if it's really possible, be the cat's meow of an API. (Can use a legacy term here?)
At or UG meeting (N3UG) this has come up more than once. The excitement is certainly spreading.
How about sending someone to work on straightening out the docs. Some areas are really very good. SOme only show modified versions of NET 1.0 examples which won't work best in 2.0 and CLR 2.0. (Another UG bugaboo.) - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
Vista ships with .NET Framework 3.0 installed by default. 3.0 will run all .NET Framework 2.0 with ZERO back compat issues (as it is the same code) and we are making every effort to ensure it will run .NET Framework 1.1 apps as well, although there maybe some issolated issues.
If there are any issues, you can installed .NET Framework 1.1 on Vista and that will take care of 99% of the issues - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
Frans - On the SP1 issue, I hear where you are comming from and thanks for pushing on this. We are in fact doing an SP1 of Visual Studio 2005 this year.. I beleive this will address most of the customer issues I have seen so far.
In addition for the .NET Framework, we are doing GDRs and QFEs to fix specific customers issues as they come up... So if you are blocked by something, please check out your support channels and we can get a fix to you without having to way for the roll up. - Anonymous
June 15, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 16, 2006
great that the SP for vs.net 2005 is still slated for 2006, that can't come soon enough! :)
"In addition for the .NET Framework, we are doing GDRs and QFEs to fix specific customers issues as they come up... So if you are blocked by something, please check out your support channels and we can get a fix to you without having to way for the roll up."
I've explained before that this won't work for me. I sell software to other developers. So if I run into a .NET bug, I could get it fixed by MS but it's of no use until all of my customers can download the fix.
For example take the silly bug where you have a datetime column in a datatable and you serialize it using remoting format binary. When the column contains a DBNull.value, it becomes datetime.minvalue on the other end. This breaks code. I can only tell my own customers: it's not our code, it's MS code which is broken. But I can't make my customers run fixed code, as MS controls the patch distribution.
So what do I do? Tell everyone they should call PSS to get a patch? That's not acceptable: I want to point to my customers a URL where the patch can be downloaded. Now I know I have to wait till H2 2007. That's a long period of time before this silly fix (and other fixes for other bugs) is available. Especially since this some patches are 6 months old or so.
that's the main problem, however Microsoft doesn't care. I can't even say: "seems it doesn't care", because it simply doesn't care, the past 3 years have proved that. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I can't draw any other conclusion.
MS therefore should FIX the .NET fixing schedule. AT LEAST every 3-6 months all patches have to be rolled up into a rollup pack. I fail to see why that can't be done. - Anonymous
June 18, 2006
"...we are making every effort to ensure it will run .NET Framework 1.1 apps as well..."
How are you going to pull that off?!? .Net 2.0 shipped already and has many app compat problems with .Net 1.1 apps. If .Net 3.0 is simply .Net 2.0 plus stuff, how on earth are you going to improve app compat situation with .Net 1.1 applications without touching .Net 2.0 binaries?!? - Anonymous
June 19, 2006
David -- You are right, the base level of compat is the same as 2.0. But we continue to work with ISVs to ensure their apps work well on 2.0 and in some cases we do QFEs to help workaround app compat issues. - Anonymous
June 22, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 26, 2006
Brad,
Do you know anyone really involved in enterprise development or system administration who likes the idea of 3.0? I personally think it is a stupid idea, and I wasn’t able to find anyone who accepts the reasons behind the change. I’d like to hear something from independent supporters. - Anonymous
July 02, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
July 19, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
August 18, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 07, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 08, 2006
I would have one question. Can you tell us that it will be possible to download .netfw3.0 without winfx? even now we use just a very small part of .netfw for our application and we would be happy to reduce the download size. but when .netfw would be distributed only in version where winfx would be included then it's going to be unusable!
why should i push our clients to download winfx if they are using only some smaller subset of .netfw functions and winfx is not important for them? so can you tell us how .netfw will be distributed for download? - Anonymous
September 18, 2006
When I earlier said that ADO.NET vNext will not be included in .NET Framework 3.0 and questioned the - Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://onlyoutdoorrugs.info/story.php?id=32