 -
8 point Member
-
kapil.wm
- Member since 10-03-2007, 10:04 AM
- India
- Posts 8
|
Hi,
Your all questions are obvious. Actually I have prepared an document for this, So I am writing that's contains here. I collected these information from different websites. Hope so you will get your ans. in that. 1.> The latest version of ASP.NET, 2.0, is more than an upgrade—it is a major update of the technology, as it changes the way ASP.NET applications are designed, compiled, and deployed. Microsoft does recognize the existence of a large number of ASP.NET 1.1 installations, so 2.0 was designed to allow older applications to work without problems. On the other hand, the need to convert existing applications to the 2.0 platform may arise. With that said, let's examine the major differences between the versions, as well as areas that may be problems during the conversion process.Version changesWhile there are many changes between ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0, there are certain ones that have a greater impact of
- Code-behind model: ASP.NET 2.0 introduces the concept of partial classes, whereas a class can span multiple class files. It is a key feature used in Visual Studio 2005 to separate system-generated code from user code. This negates the scenario where you find yourself scrolling through source code and encountering the code generated by the system. The partial class approach reduces the risk of inadvertently editing system code and results in smaller code-behind files.
- Directories: ASP.NET 2.0 has added a number of special directories where 1.1 had only the one required bin directory. Most of these new directories have the App_ prefix with names like App_Code, App_Data, App_GlobalResources, and App_LocalResources, while the bin directory still exists along with a themes directory. The new directories are a key aspect of 2.0's elimination of project files.
- No more project files: Gone are the days of project files with ASP.NET and Visual Studio 2005. The project is now the complete Web project directory, which is a drastic shift from 1.1 and can cause migration issues as described later.
- Compilation model: With 1.1, all code was compiled into one assembly placed in the bin directory. With 2.0, the assembly is separated into multiple assemblies. These multiple assemblies may be created on-the-fly or precompiled. Examples of multiple assemblies are one assembly for each ASP.NET directory like App_Code and App_Data as well as individual assemblies for Web Forms, User Controls, and so forth. This is a major shift in the application structure; it offers more deployment options in how the application is delivered to the users.
- Application deployment: The deployment of 1.1 applications was fairly straightforward as you moved the content files along with the necessary assembly files—it could easily be accomplished with a simple copy and paste with limited options. The 2.0 model provides various options for deploying an application. For instance, you may choose to precompile all code and deploy it or go the other way with no precompilation. Also, you can lock down deployed content files so no changes may be made after deployment (this is a major difference from 1.1).
The list provides a high-level view of the main differences between ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0 and what can affect the conversion of an existing application to 2.0. Now let's take a closer look at possible problem areas. 3.> .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0 MigrationI can’t tell you how many times I get customers that ask me questions about migrating from .NET 1.1 to 2.0. The topic came up at Tuesday night’s N3UG meeting. It’s an important topic, and Microsoft probably doesn’t do as good of a job as they could in getting the word out about 1.1 to 2.0 migration. Hopefully the links I have included in this post will help out as a starting place for folks looking into how much work it will take to migrate from 1.1 to 2.0. The most frequently asked question that typically starts this conversation is:Question #1: “How much work will it take to move from 1.1 to 2.0 and how long will it take?” Answer: The answer is “It depends”. Some applications move over with the simple click of a button, and others take a little more work than that. I usually respond by asking another question: Question #2: “Do you need to migrate at all?” Answer: If it is an application that is still “alive” and moving forward, then the answer is “Yes, you should migrate.” Skip below to Question #4. If you have a 1.1 application that is working just fine, and you don’t plan on modifying/updating it, leave it as it is and it should work just fine side-by-side. (As they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.") That usually leads to this question: Question #4: Okay, I want to migrate my application from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0. Where do I start? The quick and dirty answer: Back up your VS 2003/1.1 solution first!!! Then, open your Visual Studio 2002 or 2003 project/solution in Visual Studio 2005. A conversion wizard will convert the project/solution to 2005. Compile the code, and you will now have a .NET 2.0 application! The real answer: If you’re migrating a Windows Forms application, the majority of times, the quick and dirty answer above will be all it takes for you! If you’re migrating an ASP.NET web application, you should do a little homework before you open your .NET 1.1 project/solution in Visual Studio 2005. Let’s talk about non-web applications first. As I mentioned, most of the time, opening the application in Visual Studio 2005 and running it through the conversion wizard will be all it takes. This will merely update the project files (.vbproj/.csproj) to work with 2005. It will not update your application code to take advantage of the new .NET 2.0 features. At this point, when you compile your existing 1.1 code, it will be compiled against the 2.0 framework. If the code doesn’t compile, check out the list of breaking changes in the 2.0 framework I mentioned above and begin troubleshooting from there. For migrating web applications, there can be more work involved since the project model for web applications has changed greatly in Visual Studio 2005. Fortunately, the ASP.NET team has done a decent job of organizing all of their migration information in a central location. First, go here to the ASP.NET migration center on MSDN.
As of just this week (8th of May), there are now TWO options for migrating an ASP.NET 1.1 application to 2.0! For the first option read on. For the second one (which just came out and I think will make everyone’s lives much easer),
2.> You need to Install Framework 2.0 and you can check the framework version on your system in Control Panel.
Additional Information For You :-
.NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 and 3.0 Side-by-Side (SxS) I've written before about installing .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 side by side (SxS) on the same box. Microsoft recently added to the mix .NET Framework 3.0, so it's about time to clear up any confusion on the newest release.Above all, you should understand that the version designation of 3.0 was strictly marketing-driven. At the most basic level, .NET Framework 3.0 equals .NET Framework 2.0 plus a bunch of new DLLs. If you install .NET Framework 3.0 on a box that does not already have .NET Framework 2.0, the installer installs Framework 2.0. Therefore, if you already have .NET Framework 2.0 installed on a box, you should not be too concerned that installing 3.0 will break existing applications. In fact, you will find that in the ASP.NET tab in IIS Admin, .NET 3.0 is not even a choice.It is worth noting that .NET Framework 3.0 is pre-installed on Windows Vista and will be pre-installed on "Longhorn" Server. However, .NET 3.0 may be installed on any Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1 box.If you're working with a mission-critical server then you should, of course, be cautious and do some planning and testing anyway. Just be aware that the 1.1 to 2.0 story is identical to the 1.1 to 3.0 story, because 3.0 is in effect 2.0 with more files.By now you may be asking what .NET Framework 3.0 is good for if it is essentially Framework 2.0. .NET 3.0 delivers a number of long-anticipated and important features, though mostly of interest to application developers rather than server administrators. The list includes Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Presentation Foundation and Windows CardSpace. You can read more about them on the official .NET Framework 3.0 site.In summary:
- .NET 3.0 is not a major change to the core .NET Framework as was 1.0/1.1 to 2.0
- If you currently have only .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 and you are looking to install 2.0 or 3.0, see my side-by-side post
- If you currently have .NET Framework 2.0, installing .NET Framework 3.0 is not a major change as the version numbers would suggest
- If you currently run .NET 2.0 applications, they will not know or care that you have installed .NET 3.0
Good Luck.
Thanks & Regards,
Kapil Samadhiya
|
|