다음을 통해 공유

More on .NET Framework 3.0 Naming...

  • 아티클

Wow, it is great to see the level of passion around the .NET Framework! I wanted to add some additional comments to the discussion to continue to clarify some things.

One thing that is clear to me in reading through the comments is that many have been thinking of WinFX as a separate thing from the .NET Framework. That’s actually not at all how we think of it. From my perspective the Framework has the following functionality:

Engine Core

Base level functionality required to build and execute managed code. This includes things like the CLR and BCL to execute the managed code environment. It also includes some minimal subset of compiler technology for generation of managed code at runtime (e.g. C# and VB compiler).

Platform Technology

Host level functionality that allows you to write application server style functionality. Asp.Net is a great example of this kind of functionality. SQL Server is another example.

Functional Libraries

A set of rich libraries for many types of problem spaces:

· User interface code

· XML

· Database

· Web services

· Web server

· Etc…

In each new version of the .NET Framework, we continue to work on the depth and breadth of our coverage. For example, in .NET FX 2.0 we added generics and serial port to the Engine Core, SQL hosting for Platform Technology, and many new features in the Functional Libraries like ClickOnce for client applications.

The rate at which we change pieces of the stack will vary. For example, it took us a long time to create a truly built in generics technology that wasn’t just templates. And once generics were cooked at the core, we had to then plumb out the rest of the system on top. There are similar kinds of features underway for the next major revision of the CLR. We wouldn’t want to hold all new innovation for that.

There are a number of significant improvements in the release we are now calling .NET Framework 3.0:

Platform Technology

Additional hosting support with Windows Communication Foundation (WCF, “Indigo”).

Functional Libraries

· New user interface code model with vector graphic support

· Advanced web services functionality

· Built in work flow for advanced business applications

· Advanced security against phishing

All of these new improvements live in the “System.” namespace. They execute using the managed code engine core. You’ll recognize the technology names as Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Work Flow Foundation (WF), and Windows CardSpace (WCS). Even though we have added these new technologies to the .NET Framework, your existing applications will continue to execute and you can safely continue your investments using the technologies which shipped with the .NET Framework 2.0 (in fact we will continue to make improvements across the stack!).

How Do I Install the Right Framework on a Machine?

We’ve tried to make authoring your application against the .NET Framework very simple. For each version of the .NET Framework, there is a bootstrapper installation program that will set up your machine with the right set of components. So for example if you are writing a WPF client application and therefore want to use .NET Framework 3.0, you simply use the bootstrapper for that version to do the installation. It will automatically detect if you already have .NET FX 2.0 on the machine and skip that piece if so.

Several of the other questions that have been raised are around trying to get a handle on which version of .NET FX will contain which feature. This is actually pretty easy:

1. .NET Framework 3.0 makes improvements to the feature areas I mentioned through WPF, WCF, WF, and WCS.

2. Our “Orcas” release (likely to be called version 3.5) adds new features like LINQ which in turn requires new versions of the C# and VB compilers. But even with new compilers you don’t have to try and pick through a bunch of files to figure out how to make LINQ work. If you need the feature, simply deploy the “Orcas” bootstrapper and call it a day.

So the way to figure out what you need is pretty simple: what feature did you want to use? What .NET Framework version did it ship in? Grab that bootstrapper and go.

How Are the Version Numbers Picked Anyway?

There was a lot of debate around this. First of all, we should separate version numbers into two things: (1) version numbers used for binding when executing an application, and (2) the public name for the redist. The former is used by our compilers and loader to ensure you get the right set of code at runtime. None of the changes Soma announced have any impact on this.

The latter is the “branded name” for the redist we are shipping. The name is picked by marketing and they use the same kind of logic that goes into picking major version numbers for applications, operating systems, etc. In the specific example of .NET Framework 3.0, there is a lot of new compelling improvements to the technology that warrant a major version number for the redist. Again, this has no impact on how your code is compiled, installed, loaded at runtime, or even serviced once deployed.

In Closing

From my perspective Soma’s blog is very accurate: this really is just a rename of the redist. You will see very few actual changes compared to the last CTP of the 3.0 content you may already have installed. These changes will simply move the install directory to be more consistent with .NET FX 2.0 and update a few registry keys to match the name change (we are working on a CTP with these changes as we speak). Your installation experience is meant to be very simple, and the decision process for picking a framework version is simple as well (pick the version of the Framework that contains the features you want).

Finally, I plan to do a couple of extra follow up posts on a couple of topics that I’ve seen a lot of passion on: understanding red/green bits in this model, more precision on what features are in each version, and some additional prescriptive guidance on things like frameworks version detection. Let me know if you have other topics here that you’d like to see more details on.

Thanks for all the feedback and keep those comments coming!

Comments

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2006
    Pros:

    -I do like the simplicity of just deploy the version you need.

    -.net has a better brand identity than anything (winfx, etc)

    Cons:

    - Change in meaning - the "engine core" was what many thought of as the runtime... always synced with a version.  Now, when installing .net 4.0 or 5.2 we don't know if we're installing a new runtime.  This is important for all the applications running on the machine that didn't include manifest directives for what version to prefer - I guess it's important now.

    - Confusion on when to regression test old applications... when 3.0 is installed? when 3.5 is installed? (see previous points)

    Questions:

    - When 2.0 SP1 comes out, will we see "requires .net 3.0 with .net 2.0 SP1"?  Or will there be a 3.0 SP1 at the same time that also patches 2.0? (so we can say "3.0 sp1"... I like that much better - what happens after a few sps? "requires 3.0 with SP3 and 2.0 SP2 installed"  ouch!)

    - Removal: I have a clean system, If I install 3.0 and then uninstall it am I left with 2.0 on my system?  

    Comments:

     I'm not against collapsing it all into .net at all- I like the idea of simplicity, believe me!
     But it's the  russian doll model that seems a bit problematic to me - Installing new versions of the runtime can affect all .net applications on the machine (or .net COM servers).   Having some releases do this and some not will be.. confusing, and hard to explain to customers.  Service packs for required runtimes (2.0) is also a bit of a confusion point to me.  I'd love more clarity!

    Thanks!


  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2006
    Posted at Ardent Dev by Derek Hatchard (Go directly to post):  
      In case you've missed all the noise...

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2006
    I'm concerned about 3 things:
    What will be the version of mscorlib.dll and other BCL dlls?
    How will this impact orcas shedule?
    Why changing "Engine Core" is a minor change?

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2006
    Viele haben sich sicherlich schon gefragt, wie das alles weitergehen soll mit WinFx und "parallel" dem...

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2006
    Does this means that LINQ will not work on Windows 2000 for the sole reason that WPF will not work on Windows 2000 and the version of the framework that includes LINQ will also include WPF?

    Most of our customers still have some machines that run Windows 2000 and will do so for years to come.  I don't want to be locked out of all new versions of .NET just because they force WPF on me that we are not planning to use.

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    jasonz - Thanks for answering.

    " we don't just create a new version of the core with a 3.0 version stamp to avoid this. " - this is good!

    But how does it compel with ".NET FX 3.0 will be installed into the %windir%Microsoft.NETFrameworkV3.0. "?

    I'm just curious will .NET FX 2.0 from ".NET FX 3.0 install to that folder too, or it would be left in %windir%Microsoft.NETFrameworkv2.0.50727 ?

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    Jason : Thansk much for your answers!   I'm very happy about the service pack answer.    

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    Random thught:
    Imagine Orcas ships. And I make my application using VB9.0 with use of its new features and LinQ.
    Will users with bare Vista ( with .Net FX 3.0 preinstalled) be able to run my app, or the'll have to upgrade their framework?

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    > V2.0 will shipped in October 2005 and has a 10 year servicing
    > window

    Compare it to Windows.  Windows Server 2000 was shipping on new computers in 2003.  Does it have a 10 year servicing life on those computers?  Or will buyers be persuaded to reevaluate every 4 years if they might be better off switching platforms?

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    Gary - You can definately do what you describe.  Just make sure you only /r .NET FX 2.0 assemblies and you can deploy everything to Win2k.

    Fduch - LINQ is a feature of Orcas (3.5).  LINQ needs both a compiler and some library support.  A Vista user (or any 3.0 user for that matter) would therefore need to install the 3.5 framework in order to get the new libraries.

    Norman - The servicing terms are 10 years after the RTM of the product.  Since Win2k shipped in 2000 it will run out of support in 2010.  Whidbey shipped in 2005 which means its servicing window goes until 2015.  As an OS goes out of service, we generally no longer produce patches for it.  These are general guidelines, and the community will have plenty of heads up before such a boundary was crossed.

    Jason

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2006
    But at least right now with the LINQ preview there is NO need to deploy a new version of the framework to clients in order to run programs that use LINQ. Which is beautiful, and I just HOPE, HOPE, HOPE you keep it that way. Right now LINQ programs run on .Net 2.0, because one can xcopy deploy the additional libraries needed with apps. Please, keep that! The major barrier with .Net is deployment of the framework. The more you can innovate on top of existing .Net 2.0 deployments (as you have shown with LINQ), the better.

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2006
    David - we will definately continue to build on top of 2.0.  Xcopy deployment is somewhat orthoganal to that.  The early versions of LINQ are done this way because there is not setup ready yet for the Orcas release.  That will be be comming online later this year when we start doing full Orcas CTP's.

    This one is probably worth a blog post of its own as I know there is a lot of passion around this (we have lots of long debates ourselves internally around this).

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2006
    What can you say about Microsoft Phoenix and its shedule?

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2006
    I'm not sure what the ship schedule is for Phoenix.  They did recently release an RDK:

    http://research.microsoft.com/phoenix/default.aspx

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2006
    Gates to end daily MS role, to spend more time running his charitable foundation.  Say what you...

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2006
    "One thing that is clear to me in reading through the comments is that many have been thinking of WinFX as a separate thing from the .NET Framework."

    Originally it was.  Avalon and Indigo (and WinFS) were pillars of the original Longhorn: part of the Windows OS and developed by the Windows division (so we thought).  At that point, we were told that the main new Windows features were going to be built in managed code, on top of .NET.

    When did this all change?  With the big Longhorn reset?  The way it is now, with WinFX becoming .NET 3.0, it appears that WinFX is now no longer part of the Windows organization but is owned and developed by the MS Developer division.

    I can understand the confusion; you can trace it all the way back to the original Longhorn vision, and the lack of explanation of the changes in the Longhorn reset.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 18, 2006
    Jason Zander's WebLog : More on .NET Fra...

  • Anonymous
    June 18, 2006
    hi
    i want to know on which date .Net Frame work 3.0 is going to release officially? we are thinking to use its functionality but decision depends on its availibilty according to the schedule of our product release. So can u give me its exact date of release?

    thanks
    regards

  • Anonymous
    June 19, 2006
    We are also considering a WPF Smart Client, but are wondering when the WinFX runtime will be at RTM.  Will it be before the OS rtm in Nov?  We are apprehensive about pushing a beta runtime to our customers through the SC.

    Thanks,

    John

  • Anonymous
    June 20, 2006
    I want to ask some questions regarding .NET Framework 3.0

    1. Will it work on my development machine which is Windows XP ?
    2. Can I deploy my product having Windows 2000 ?
    3. Are/will we (be) having any control in Framework 3.0 like windows vista explorer, where thumbnail of an image can be resized using a slider control ? And will that run on Windows XP/2000 ? (because that might be using WPF)

    Regards,
    Jigar Mehta

  • Anonymous
    June 20, 2006
    Thanks for the good response! I have a few follow up questions:

    "We are NOT touching the 2.0 bits.  3.0 and 3.5 ARE additive."

    If that is true, great! So that means that WPF, WCF, WF and CardSpace 1.5 (don't know what version number you will use, but the next version of those things) have to be purely additive. No touching of any of the DLLs that are deployed with the initial release. Is that realistic? Have those teams signed up to this? Again, here we have something that follows from the decision that is clearly NOT purely marketing and name related, right?

    Remember, if .Net 3.5 is additive for the CLR, BCL etc but NOT for the stuff formerly known as WinFX, than the good effect of the carefull updates of the CLR, BCL etc stuff is wasted. If I require .Net 3.5 for my app because of LINQ but risk to break other apps that use WPF by deploying .Net 3.5, than this solution is bad and keeping the two seperate would have been better.

  • Anonymous
    June 20, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 20, 2006
    "Installers are chained.  So your algorithm is to pick the version of the .NET FX that has the features you want to target and deploy the boostrapper for that version"

    Bootstrappers are a MAJOR deployment blocker. They are even worse than MSI setups. I just wish Microsoft would understand that at some point. One of your TOP priorities should be to avoid boot strappers. They can't be deployed easily via GPO, they need admin rights, they can't be used easily with ClickOnce (in a non-admin environment). They are the major, major blockers for ISVs. That was why initially I was so thrilled about the way the LINQ stuff seemed to work: At least with the current CTP, I don't need to deploy ANYTHING to client machines. THAT is the way it should be. I don't care how often I as a dev have to update my machine with new stuff, but EVERY effort should be made on your part to innovate on top of deployed .Net 2.0 platform for client apps, without needing a new bootstrapped deployment on the clients.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2006
    I see you as reasonable person, Jason.
    How can you camment this disaster?
    http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx#comments

  • Anonymous
    June 28, 2006
    Jason, any chance to get answers to my three previous comments here on the blog? Or at least on the "So WPF, WCF and WF 1.5 can't exchange a single binary, have they agreed on that?" question? :) Thanks!

  • Anonymous
    August 12, 2006
    Fellow Belgian software guys, check out this great (free of charge) event that will take place in Brussels...

  • Anonymous
    October 20, 2006
    Technorati Weblog: Blog Claiming with OpenId Technorati supports using OpenId to claim your blog(s) now. Nice list of plugins too. We outta get the MT one setup on RedMonk. (tags: openid plugins technorati identity2.0 claimid) Google sweeps earnings week..

  • Anonymous
    October 26, 2006
    PingBack from http://mtaulty.com/CommunityServer/blogs/mike_taultys_blog/archive/2006/10/26/8938.aspx

  • Anonymous
    March 22, 2009
    PingBack from http://blog.ninethsense.com/more-on-net-framework-30-naming-2/

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009
    PingBack from http://castironbakeware.info/story.php?title=jason-zander-s-weblog-more-on-net-framework-3-0-naming

  • Anonymous
    June 08, 2009
    PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=2629

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://hairgrowthproducts.info/story.php?id=1656

  • Anonymous
    June 12, 2009
    PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=8775