WinFX is now .NET Framework 3.0 | The Coffeehouse

mawcc
Make it so

Via Somasegar's Blog

He also states that

"
The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET, WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR, as well as new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS.
"

Which I interpret that .NET Framework 3.0 will not include any of the new data access technologies like LINQ or ADO.NET (3.0?).
It'll also interesting to see if .NET Framework 3.0 will still be one installation package, which is then going to be HUGE.

<edit>ASP.NET -> ADO.NET</edit>

Cornelius Ellsonpeter

Meanwhile, what happens to the other folks out there who have put any effort into learning .NET 1.0 or 1.1? What about 2.0? It's one thing to put an app out and having swiftly climbing version numbers, but whole frameworks? I guess there won't be many machines with a 1.1, a 2.0 and 3.0 framework installed...wait, I take that back...will 3.0 be available for XP?

This sounds like some seriously messed up design work. I predict 4.0 by late 2007.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

mawcc wrote:
It'll also interesting to see if .NET Framework 3.0 will still be one installation package, which is then going to be HUGE.

They'll split it into 3 distributions probably:

.NET for Servers
.NET for Desktops/Laptops
Compact Framework

The ASP.NET framework and other tidbits have been included in the .NET redistributable for a while now, even though they're never needed.

AndyC

Makes sense, I was hoping they'd do this as it makes explaining requirements a lot easier.

I'd imagine the WinFX bits will ship as .NET 3.0 for downlevel clients (with .NET 2.0 as a prerequisite) and Vista will just have .NET 3.0 already installed. Or they might do one of those smart, download-the-bits-you-need installers that they seem to love so much those days.

cwilliams1145

Ooh, fun with numbers. It seems kind of silly to call this 3.0 when the core library, compilers, and the CLR are not changing. Should this not be a point release?

I see some confusion coming down the pike. Up till now, major compiler releases have coincided with major framework releases. That seems to be changing here.

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:
Meanwhile, what happens to the other folks out there who have put any effort into learning .NET 1.0 or 1.1?

Depends on the market penetration of the various higher versions.

Cornelius Ellsonpeter

Maurits wrote:

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote: Meanwhile, what happens to the other folks out there who have put any effort into learning .NET 1.0 or 1.1?
Depends on the market penetration of the various higher versions.

But what about the corporations that have put money into building programs off the older frameworks? I know you can install them side by side (1.0 next to 2.0 next to...etc). This is beginning to look a lot like "Java" all over again. Will there be "depreciated" functions or anything like that? Or will be essentially the 2.0 framework with some extras? Which framework should a corporation target? I'm starting to see the potential for a lot of bloat here. It almost reminds me of the VB dll libraries, but worse.

Meanwhile, sales of any 1.0 and 2.0 framework books are now starting to plummet. Glad I'm not an author.

DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

It could have been worse. They could have renamed it .Net Live

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:
This is beginning to look a lot like "Java" all over again

Yup.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

from the blog

---
When speaking to developers about WinFX one question that repeatedly comes up is, “WinFX sounds great, but what happens to .NET?” .NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world. Developers know and love .NET.
---

Is it only me or are other people starting to wonder about about people let lose with a compiler. How hard is it to realise the WinFX is built on .NET?

On a different note, are they going to bump the build number to 3.0.XXXX for no good reason in the core framework?

mawcc
Make it so

I think that versioning of the .NET Framework will no longer mean simultaneous new versions of the libraries, CLR and compilers.
.NET Framework 3.0 adds new libraries. The next version will probably add libraries (e.g. ADO.NET 3.0) and a new compiler (C# 3.0, running on the 2.0 runtime) and the version after that will probably have a new runtime.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

PerfectPhase wrote:
On a different note, are they going to bump the build number to 3.0.XXXX for no good reason in the core framework?

I doubt it.

My 1.1 assemblies are all 1.0.50xxx

ben2004uk

From what I have heard, Linq is just an addon to the existing .net 2.0 framework.

As for WinFX - don't think they will change it this late in the day....

EDIT: WOW I missed it, thats what I get for spending time with the gf.

http://blogs.msdn.com/jackg/archive/2006/06/09/624438.aspx

BIG BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!! WOW NO NO NO NO NO DONT LIKE IT!!! BAD MOVE!

DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

And InfoCard is now Windows CardSpace?

As in "We're about to make the jump into CardSpace"?

ben2004uk

Whats the deal with Linq then??

raymond

mawcc wrote:
Via Somasegar's Blog

He also states that

"
The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET, WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR, as well as new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS.
"

Which I interpret that .NET Framework 3.0 will not include any of the new data access technologies like LINQ or ADO.NET (3.0?).
It'll also interesting to see if .NET Framework 3.0 will still be one installation package, which is then going to be HUGE.

<edit>ASP.NET -> ADO.NET</edit>

You might be right, but I would have thought that the .NET Framework 3.0 would be including both LINQ and ADO.NET 3.0 as well as ASP.NET 3.0.

I thought the .NET Framework 3.0 would be included in the sever version of Windows Vista and that would be shipped with Visual Studio 7.0 in the fall of 2007.

Some clarification from Microsoft would be helpful. Expressionless

DoomBringer
Doom!

WPF is just a display layer... who was confused about that? Made sense to me.

raymond

Make that Visual Studio 2007.

ben2004uk

So there is going to be a .net 3.0 framework for Winfx and a .net 3.0 framework for linq?

but the CLR will still be 2.0?

Cornelius Ellsonpeter

How much do you want to bet in the next few weeks you'll start seeing jobs in the classified section of your local newspaper looking for candidates with 1 year of experience with .NET 3.0? 5 years of AJAX...etc...

Escamillo

I think this is a good move.

On the one hand, I think it's a good move. Once Microsoft made the decision to downport WinFX to XP, the following equation made sense: .NET Frameworks 2.0 + WinFX = .NET Frameworks 3.0. Of course, now we have the situation where the latest versions of the .NET Frameworks, .NET core (CLR), and C# have different version numbers, but it makes sense that the version numbers of these things be independent.

On the other hand, WinFX could've retained the "WinFX" name, and simply be an API within the .NET Frameworks like Winforms. But we'll essentially have this, because while WinFX disappears as an "umbrella" api, the new WPF, WCF, WF, and WCS become apis within the .NET Frameworks.

Winston Pang

I actually like this unified approach, it sure beats explaining what WinFX is etc, but definitely as someone mentioned we might fall into the java issue. A crap load of versioned frameworks.

But however since they're intgerating WinFX into .NET 3.0, it's still better than having WinFX runtime components and .NET 2.0.

Back in the early .NET days, people were worried about convincing the user to install a chunk that big, well they still are having a hard time to convince them, but if we have the WinFX runtime components as a separate framework, you'd have to do the convincing all over again, and people who's starting to adapt to the WinFX pillars, will have a hard time getting their apps out the door if the end-user is so reluctant to install the WinFX runtime.

However, that said, i do hope MS does not hit into the stupid road that Java has, and create multiple frameworks and separate them, cause everytime i dev for Java, i have to make sure that what ever libraries i'm using would be in the Java VM.

dotnetjunkie

Of course it makes sense.

Some people here panic for no reason at all. Nothing changed, just the name!!! And it was wise to go for the .NET branding, it is well-known by now, and it makes sense because it consists of the current .NET Framework 2.0, together with some major new stuff, hence the 3.0

rjdohnert
You will never know success until you know failure

This is just more than likely a last ditched effort to get Windows 2000 users to upgrade since Im almost positive .NET Framework 3.0 will be unsupported on Windows 2000. Start testing Mono compliance.

cwilliams1145

dotnetjunkie wrote:

Some people here panic for no reason at all. Nothing changed, just the name!!!

Yes, it's just a name and nothing has changed technically, but it can still cause confusion. Currently, compiler version = framework version = CLR version. With this change, the versions start to happen on different schedules.

Incrementing a major version number because you're adding to the library seems silly. Especially because 3.0 will only be Windows XP and beyond, even though the core framework hasn't changed.

When it comes to .NET dev tools, versions are how you tell what's compatible with what. More explaination is needed to see what's what.