Jiri Cincura wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 21:44, Kjell Rilbe <[email protected]> wrote: > >>I would assume that those who are still on 2.0 for various reasons would >>find it rather disappointing if 2.0 were to be dropped completely. Might >>be a reason to switch away from FB? >> >>For me personally, our project is on 3.5 so as long as 3.5 is supported >>we're happy. Also, I suppose we would be able to upgrade to 4.0 as soon >>as ECO (www.capableobjects.com) supports it. > > I think you don't understand the relation between .NET 3.5 and .NET > 2.0. The 3.5 is just extended 2.0, the runtime is the same as well as > the base libraries. What I'm talking about is to drop just 2.0 > support, but keep 3.5. i.e. using .NET 4 and .NET 3.5's features.
Yes, I am a .Net novice and have a very vague grasp of the various versions. But I find your statement somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, you say that 3.0 and 3.5 are just extensions to 2.0, which would seem to indicate that dropping 2.0 support would imply also dropping 3.0 and 3.5 support. But on the other hand you say the opposite: that you intend to drop only 2.0 support, but keep 3.5 (and 3.0?) support. Can you clarify, just make sure I (and possibly others) don't misunderstand you? Thank you, Kjell -- -------------------------------------- Kjell Rilbe DataDIA AB E-post: [email protected] Telefon: 08-761 06 55 Mobil: 0733-44 24 64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Firebird-net-provider mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-net-provider
