Pondering .NET Framework support (again)

Now we've released volume 2006.3 of DXperience (that is, of our UI controls and frameworks for .NET), it is time to think about volume 2007.1, the first version of next year.

Coincidentally, I've set aside Wednesday, the day after tomorrow, as the day I install Vista on my main machine (and already I can hear you say, huh? what's that got to do with the next version of DXperience?). At that point I will be using .NET 3.0 full-time, on an operating system that automatically comes with it. Already Windows XP SP2 comes with .NET 2.0, although I suppose you can elect not to install it, but Vista will have .NET available as part of the install. From next January, Vista will start the uphill task of becoming as ubiquitous as XP: it will start to be shipped with new PCs and will be available as a paid upgrade.

Now, I, of all people, have no idea at all how quick that process will be. How many people will upgrade and how quickly? Dunno. Haven't the foggiest, old chum. No matter what though, .NET 2.0 will continue its onward march to become the version of .NET to target, especially as .NET 3.0 is "just" a few more .NET assemblies thrown on the top of .NET 2.0. And .NET 3.5 is not that far away (at least I think that's what it's going to be called).

And we, as third-party vendors of .NET products, have to be there before our customers, because when our customers need some .NET control that targets .NET 2.0/3.0 we have to have written it already. And we had better have all the .NET 2.0 bells and whistles as part of that control.

Now this can be read to mean WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) controls, and I won't deny it: we have already started our investigations and research in this area, but we're way too early for me to even begin discussing what we're going to do. It doesn't help that WPF controls have to work on two different design surfaces: that provided by Cider in Orcas (the designer for the next version of Visual Studio) and that provided by Microsoft Expression Interactive Designer, both of which are in a state of flux.

But it also applies to our WinForms controls and ASP.NET controls and our application frameworks. We need to target .NET 2.0 more strongly than we have done in the past. I admit we've started the process: some of the functionality we have in our controls is only there for .NET 2.0 (for example, our accessibility support is better in a .NET 2.0 application than in a .NET 1.x application because the underlying support is more full-featured in .NET 2.0). And the XPO guys have already started blogging about what we're thinking with regard to LINQ support, and that's .NET 3.5 material.

So, here I am thinking about what to do with .NET 1.x. I really feel as if we are starting to hobble ourselves and our customers by attempting to target all versions of .NET. There was a tech support case recently that I was asked to comment on whose solution was downright obvious: use a nullable type wrapping a value type. Except that our control has no knowledge of nullable types: it's a .NET 2.0 feature. So we're going to have to use a "special" value to represent a database null. It's just a horrible hack; I hated it way back when I had to do that, and I still hate it now (there's inevitably some code that doesn't "know" about the special value -- a bug waiting to happen, which is why I was called in on this particular support case).

One of the plans I'm considering and that we're now discussing for 2007.1 is this: freeze the set of controls that work with .NET 1.x to the set that were shipped with 2006.3. Maintain them, provide tech support for them, deliver bug fixes and workarounds for the foreseeable future (at least well into 2008 and maybe even as far as 2009). In essence, continue providing minor releases of 2006.3 for the next 18 to 24 months (or longer, depending on demand).

However, under this plan, the new controls and functionality we'll make available in 2007.1 will be for .NET 2.0 and 3.0 only. We can fully take advantage of the new functionality embedded in the .NET 2.0 framework, as well as use new features like generics, iterators, and anonymous methods (and the aforementioned nullable types) to in turn deliver the features you need in that environment.

Given that this is one of the plans we're considering, what do you think?

92 comment(s)
Lu. Po.
We are already targeting only .NET 2.0, so you have my positive feedback.
28 November, 2006
Lars Black
To me (and I must admit that we don't have a .NET 1.1 codebase except for CF.NET 1)  it would make absolutely sense to freeze 2006.3 for .NET 1.1 and use the newer framework-features for new releases.

28 November, 2006
I always say to go full force with 2.0 as you have already lost valuable time. And provide bug fixes for last version that supports .net 1.1.
28 November, 2006
Nathan Laff
Best idea I've heard so far this morning (though I've only been at work 15 minutes...)

I'm in full support of you guys dropping .net 1.x. 2.0 and up is the way to go!you have a solid set of controls for those still on 1.x with 2006.3
28 November, 2006
Greg Shelton
Our primary products are still being developed and maintained with .NET 1.1.  However, in January any new development taking place will use .NET 2.0, and we will continue to maintain our old .NET 1.1 product line until we're able to phase them out with our .NET 2.0 products.

If dropping .NET 1.x means you're able to add functionality to existing controls (the suggestions in the support center) and/or add new controls more quickly then by all means drop .NET 1.x.

28 November, 2006
Steven Rasmussen
Ditto to what everyone has said.  Out with the old and in with the new!
28 November, 2006
Julien Ferraro
Well, we still use only .Net 1, so I think it's why my opinion will count a bit more than those that already switched to .Net 2 ...

I TOTALLY FOLLOW Julian when he wants to migrate to .Net 2 and 3. Your competitors won't wait for you. And this will help me make the decision to migrate (you know how it is, you always have something more urgent to do ...)

So yes, please move further and get us the best components.

I'm a bit more carefull when talking about WPF. I don't know exactly how it works, but as my customers won't migrate to Vista since at least 2 years, I need the new functionallities but in both flavours with and without WPF

Just my 2 cents
29 November, 2006
Sounds pretty good.

Lock down the feature set of 2006.3 and just provide bug fixes. Albeit for some time to come :)

Continue developing from 2007.1 (or thereabouts) for 2.0 only :)

Interesting to note that I am 100% in favour of this even though I have still yet to move to VS2k5. (We start our move on Jan 2nd)

I'd suggest that you move straight to 3.0 however as this is still the same runtime.

29 November, 2006
Neil Donhauser
We are still programming in VS2003 but plan to migrate to VS2005 in February '07.  So I don't see any problem with using 2.0 and 3.0 for 2007.1.  

However I wouldn't move straight to 3.0 because of the system requirements, mainly the operating system requirement.  We still have a ton of users who are on Windows 2000.
29 November, 2006
WCF, WWF,  WPF seem to be a bright future. I'm currently developing with the Ajax Beta 2 and Net 3.0 framework. Looking forward to the 2007 generation of DXperience. Thanks.
30 November, 2006
Julien Ferraro: FYI WPF runs on Vista, XP SP2 and 2003 (SP1 I think). Unfortunatelly it doesn't run on 2000.
30 November, 2006
Ben Hayat
>>However, under this plan, the new controls and functionality we'll make available in 2007.1 will be for .NET 2.0 and 3.0 only. We can fully take advantage of the new functionality embedded in the .NET 2.0 framework, as well as use new features like generics, iterators, and anonymous methods (and the aforementioned nullable types) to in turn deliver the features you need in that environment.<<

Great Plan!
30 November, 2006
Rollie CLaro
provide updates and support for current net 1.1 subscription, offer new customers .net 2.0 subscription and move to .net 3.0

consider .net 1.1 like your visual studio 6 legacy products.

1 December, 2006
Mike Davis
I'm for drawing the line in the sand and leaving 1.xx in the dust.  Don't abandon, continue support.
1 December, 2006
David Shannon
I'm ok with freezing 1.1, but I'm not that excited about 3.0 yet.  We'll be using 2.0 for the forseeable future, and we need for DevExpress to treat that as a first-class environment.  Lots of folks are just now starting to move to 2.0.  Given that 3.0 seems to be 2.0+, supporting both should be the target for quite a while...
3 December, 2006
Mas Kosenko
That's a great idea. We have finally moved to 2.0 and we have checked that not one of our customers have any problem with updating to .NET 2. So don't waste a time on 1.1 and move your code to native 2.0 usage.

Having WPF in research also very good. I believe that's a future but it requires Orcas probably to make it really useful. Being prepared for that is absolutely necessary. Anyway I don't think that any of the competitive suite will be really useful in WPF early 2007.

Btw - any thought on supporting CF with GUI?
4 December, 2006
Well, Vista set a great example of saying "tough luck, we're cutting ties to VS 2003" so I think it's time to look forward and not back!  Stick with VS 2005, help us look to tomorrow and cut the past!  I'd like to see DX also build to x64 and not just x86 compatibility and take advantage of x64 where possible.

Buh bye .NET 1.1!
5 December, 2006
Greg Bradburn
We are also only targetting .Net 2.0 and would prefer to see you devote your resources on support for that platform.
5 December, 2006
Great idea. We used VS2005 and target only .NET 2
5 December, 2006
we are only in the .net2.0 space now. Go for it
5 December, 2006
Absolutely the right move - full steam ahead!
5 December, 2006
John Gooding
I'm all for dropping 1.x support, the controls at times are actually a pain to deal with because they don't fully understand nullable types, take advantage of generics etc.

Framework 3.0 unfortunately is a slightly different beast, with 3.0 MS has drawn an OS line in the sand, not supporting Win 2k (still possibly the most deployed corporate OS) hurts our acceptance of 3.0, and possibly 3.5 if they keep that line.

Large corporations still have a lot of machines that keep getting handed down as new ones are bought that simply don't meet an expected usability performance level post Win 2k.

Most 1.x applications require minimal changes to move to 2.0, the move to 3.0 requires hardware / OS licensing changes which then limits the target audience of who can use the products.

With that said, I'm all for .Net 2.0 but ask for caution on 3.X features.
5 December, 2006
Shloma Baum
As most of the people here as said, drop 1.1 and focus on 2.0 and above.

Btw, I would also love to see you guys support the CF with GUI components, as its a growing market without a real competitor currently.
5 December, 2006
Matt Everett
We are also focusing solely on .net 2.0 and wouldn't be sad to see the back of .net 1.x. Drop new features from 1.x and you won't hear complaints from me.

One issue that we are constantly receiving critisism on, is the speed of the DevEx stuff, especially when resizing a window with a few toolbars on. I'd sincerely like to see some work put into making the toolbar sizing/drawing code a bit more efficient. If you said to me that speed is going to be a major focus when the controls are being reworked with the Vista UIs in mind ... then I could probably be satisfied knowing that high performance toolbars will be commonplace in future.
5 December, 2006
And I really want to see all the numeric/boolean editors exposing their Value properties as Nullable<...> :)
5 December, 2006
Martin Hart Turner
I don't have any problems with freezing 1.1 development.

I would far rather the effort be put into new research and future .NET frameworks, than have the whole development strangled by compatability issues.

Having said that, I think bug fixes should be retrospective - it's just the new stuff I'm not fussed about.

Just my 2 cent worth...

5 December, 2006
No problem for me
5 December, 2006
Hal Diggs
hear hear... we've left 1.x in the dust.  I believe we'll be dealing with 2.0 for quite a while so I am glad to hear you plan on keeping it in 2007.  Our plans on 3.0 are to wait and see.  Its just to much work for us to keep up at this point.
5 December, 2006
Gionatan Corso
I use only v.2.0 and i'm waiting to use 3.0, i appreciate your investiment in 2.0 and 3.00. good work
5 December, 2006
We are 2.0 only at this point as well.  I expect support but not new features for legacy 1.x
5 December, 2006
Robert Beaubien
Its about time.  There are plenty of features in 6.3 for continued good development in 1.1 as long as bug fixes keep coming.  I've been on .net 2.0 for a year now with only a few stragler projects left behind in 1.1.
5 December, 2006
James Baile
We are targeting .NET 2.0 in all our application development and have no problems with loosing support for 1.1
5 December, 2006
I am developing mainly in Net 2.0 now and have upgraded most live applications whenever I've had to do work on them.  However I still have to work with Net 1.1 on applications which are to be hosted on Citrix because Citrix cannot handle Net 2.0 at this time.  I think that Citrix is expected to be able to use host Net 2.0 early next year and once that happens I shall update these Citrix-hosted applications as soon I have to do significant changes to them.  I therefore think that freezing Net1.1 at version 2006.3 will not be a problem for me.
5 December, 2006
C. McNutt
I'm not doing much in the .NET space personally yet, (Win32 Delphi mostly still), so my input here is of marginal value with respect to the question at hand.... BUT I wanted to leave a comment to say that I'm just glad to see you guys putting SOMETHING out there to indicate possible future plans and/or thoughts, of ANY kind.... as you know all to well, it's very frustrating trying to make project plans without a reasonable idea of where your underlying technology and tools are headed.  For you, that unknown is largely Microsoft, and for us as developers and customers, that unknown is largely you.

So, thanks for blog post, and the openness in general.  Looking forward to seeing more from where this post came from.

Now, if we could just get a real roadmap on your website...   : )

5 December, 2006
For MicroISV/Shareware developers like my company, and especially those that sell business-related software, the constant flux of .NET is a real headache. Just now is .NET 1.1 getting installed enough places that I would think about distributing .NET Shareware to the public. The framework download/install isn't insignificant. In itself it is ten times larger than my largest software installer.

Only this month did several vendors update the components I use to support .NET2/VS2005. I have just now gained the ability to port my applications to .NET 2.0, but do I want to? .NET 2.0 is barely 1 year old and it seems everyone is focused on 3.0 already. By the time I get .NET 2 supported and the bugs worked out I'll bet 3.0 will pop up. It seems like I've been playing a constant game of catch-up this last 18 months. Now that I have a product nearing release that uses the 1.1 framework, 2.0 has been released and everyone is already talking about V3!

Next thing I'll find out is 3.0 isn't at all backwards compatible with 1.1 :-)
5 December, 2006
by all means use the shiny new features in fw 2.0 and beyond, but please please please continue to support the existing 1.0/1.1 controls.

maybe optionally offer the 1.1 controls as part of any 2.0 control suite purchase.

for the few of us who have to still work in 1.0 and 1.1 applications, the continuation of support & bugfixes for the next year or two will be very welcome.
5 December, 2006
n berry
I hav to agree with this blog

That's a great idea. We have finally moved to 2.0 and we have checked that not one of our customers have any problem with updating to .NET 2. So don't waste a time on 1.1 and move your code to native 2.0 usage.

Having WPF in research also very good. I believe that's a future but it requires Orcas probably to make it really useful. Being prepared for that is absolutely necessary. Anyway I don't think that any of the competitive suite will be really useful in WPF early 2007.

5 December, 2006
This is very very unfortunate - please do not mis-understand I understand your want to impliment the new features - I recognize this...BUT

Do most of you actually use VS.2005 for projects of any significant size.  Do you follow the boards in realizing that the IDE is too slow for those of us with solutions of 12+ projects - of which I have 4 solutions of this size or greater.

Please do not discontinue support UNTIL the IDE resolves the performance issues are resolved.  The current IDE is still unusable from many devs point of view.

I am not alone on this thinking
5 December, 2006
David Sangines
I only use 2.0 since one year ago.

I found LINQ really usefull, and I will use it really soon in my projects.
5 December, 2006
It is not unusual for software to be deprecated because market demand and other forces. Your plan to cease development of 1.1 seem very reasonable to me although I have applications developed in the 1.1 and 2.0 space. Deprecate and freeze. Please set primary focus on 2.0 space and prepare for 3.0
5 December, 2006
Patrice RAUCQ
It's OK for me.
We are studying WF and WCF, and in the future WPF when the IDE will be useable.
We already have one VS2005 running on a Vista machine.

Looking forward to the 2007 generation of DXperience.
5 December, 2006
Tom Crocker
I'm in favor of moving on as well.  We found moving our codebase into 2K5 quite painless and I don't see any really valid reason for letting 1.x compatibility hold things back any longer. I've always considered legacy code/environments bad candiates for trying to get new or fancy with.  Old stuff just breaks too easily.  If the existing controls are maintained, they are fine for code that really should be considered to be in "maintenance mode."

As far as new Vista based stuff goes, I want to see you develop it, but I don't want it to be so important that I'm basically forced to decide to prematurely cut some potential users off who insist on hanging on to old OS's too long.  Our software is targeted at consumers and we can't afford to alienate too many of them for the sake of "prettier" or "sexier" components.

For the most part I think you've understood this and haven't forced skinning your controls too hard.  Since I can't skin some Windows and other 3rd party controls reliably, I still can't use skinning even though it looks great.  (I still wish you'd provide an XP theme/skin to solve some problems and make the skin designer easier to use with better documentation.)

All in all, I love your stuff and our users like the way it looks and works.
5 December, 2006
Time to move. We are are moving to 3.0 asap and look forward to Dev Express doing the same.
5 December, 2006
Francisco A. Pinheiro
I only use .NET 2.0 in all my application development and have no problems with loosing support for 1.1
5 December, 2006
Martin Kammann
You have my vote. Go with 2.0 and beyond.
5 December, 2006
Claudio Piffer
I only use 2.0.
5 December, 2006
Dean Van Es
All the new development we are doing is in 2.0 and we are in support mode for our 1.1 apps.

Defiantly do the move.
5 December, 2006
Rich Ackerson
As part of the minority group that has little to no practical experience with .NET I can say I am all in favor of you freezing the 1.1 support with D2006.3 and moving forward with .NET 2.0+.  When we eventually get to the point of being able to produce our software for .NET, I know we will definitely be targetting at least .NET 2.0.

I am in a similar boat as Tom Crocker, who wrote 'Our software is targeted at consumers and we can't afford to alienate too many of them for the sake of "prettier" or "sexier" components' so please don't force Vista down our throats (yet).  Our target industry is very slow to upgrade their hardware; we quite literally have hundreds of users still using Windows 98 and a grand total of 0% of our clients are even hinting at wanting .NET or Vista support at present (so it may be quite a while before .NET becomes a reality for us!)

Still when .NET does finally become our reality, I would rather you had been focusing on developing components that exploited the best available .NET features rather than have you worrying about backwards compatibility.
5 December, 2006
Geoff Davis
.NET 1.1 Who? Don't you mean .NET 2.0? :-)
5 December, 2006
Steve Clarke
That's a bit disappointing seeing as we are a "paranoid about VS2005 company" (I'd love to be proved wrong, but reading a quite a few blogs and such about how crappy and slow the VS2005 IDE is compared to VS2003 I think our caution is justified).
How M$ can release such dodgey software to a worldwide audience is beyond me...
Anyways, back to DevExpress, I think that as long as the current features for 1.1 are pretty extensive, so as long as we still get bug fixes it isn't too bad... Although it makes me question why we just renewed our DevExpress subscription for the year...
5 December, 2006
Go ahead with dropping .Net 1.x.
Wanting to cater for too many frameworks only means that you build to the lowest common denominator and not take advantage of the advances offered by the more recent and current platforms.
There will always be good and bad reasons for a small minority to hold on to the old versions; providing them with bug fixes on the current release is fair.
5 December, 2006
Anderson Lee
Forget .NET 1.x go ahead with .NET 2.x and .NET 3.x.
5 December, 2006
Edward Tice
We have been targeting .NET 2.0 for quite some time now....  Anticipating .NET 3.0.  Any chance of developing on the X64 platform?
5 December, 2006
I only use 2.0
6 December, 2006
I only use .NET 2.0 in all my application
6 December, 2006
Matthias Luecking

Drop 1.1 and go for the best.
6 December, 2006
6 December, 2006
Arnab Chakraborty
This is a good decision to give support and give the time to the user to upgrade them.
It is really not possible to maintain all the version depending on the parent product.

And I am glad to know that you people have started job on 3.0. There are many things are there. I have already done some sorts of RND on WPF. So I found it very good and it is going to change the vision of win form.

So go ahead with you decision.

Thank you
6 December, 2006
A programmer with sense doesn’t use 1.x anymore.
2.0 and 3.x is what we need.
6 December, 2006
Andreas Lindenthal
We only use NET 2.0. Stop supporting NET 1.1.
6 December, 2006
Martin Akerlund
No problem. Drop 1.x.
(We will freeze out 1.x product when Vista is released).
6 December, 2006
Ralph von Pawelsz
For my company:
.NET 1.X is obsolete!
.NET 2.0 is what I use in projects now
.NET 3.X is what I will use in projects in the near future.

del 1.X
6 December, 2006
Pawel Borkowski (bilberry)
I use only .NET 2.0 and looking forward .NET 3.0.
Forget about .NET 1.x and target .NET 2.0/3.0 & LINQ .
And what about XPO & LINQ. How they can be connected?
6 December, 2006
Ergün Özyurt
Good chose. .Net 2.0 and 3.x must be target platform.
6 December, 2006
Christian Jäger
We have dropped 1.1 and are focusing on 2.0 and 3.0 features too

Go ahead and drop 1.x
6 December, 2006
Fred Kloosterman
I can fully agree with your approach of focusing to .NET 2.x. and higher versions and leave .NET 1.1 as it is now. VS2003 at my company is almost a passed station as we move to VS2005.
6 December, 2006
Declan O Loughlin
We are only supporting .NET 2+
6 December, 2006
Paolo Liverani
Drop 1.1.
6 December, 2006
Keep support and bugfixes for 1.1 but don't do more than that. New functionality should be focused on .net 2.0 and beyond.

At least, that's what we do...
6 December, 2006
Rainer Jodoin
We are still using version 3.22 of the dxGrid and would like to work with Delphi 2006, which seems to be impossible. NET Framework is no issue for us today.
6 December, 2006
we are not use .NET 1.x in our solution.
6 December, 2006
Diogo Damiani Ferreira
We're already using only .NET 2.0 in our application development, so you have my positive feedback.
6 December, 2006
we use 2.0 too.
6 December, 2006
brian carpenter
I currently target only 2.0 and only "thinking about" moving over to 3.0...
6 December, 2006
Jim Clark
"Already Windows XP SP2 comes with .NET 2.0, although I suppose you can elect not to install it..."

Just to clarify, that is not the case.  I agree with the decision to focus on .NET 2.0 and 3.0 but that comment got me really excited about the likelihood that my user base will already have the 2.0 Framework on their computer.  I tested this on a virtual PC and after install XP and XP SP 2 I have no version of the framework at all :-(
6 December, 2006
Gianni Forcelli
For my company:
.NET 1.X is obsolete!
.NET 2.0 is what I use in projects now
.NET 3.X is what I will use in projects in the near future.
6 December, 2006
Sam Raj
AspxGrid 6.3

Very fast upgrade releases.
Faster bug fixes.

In 6.3 all the javascript functions are having cryptic names, so hard to find & use undocumented functions.
Loading speed of the grid is still poor.
6 December, 2006
Martin Paternoster
I believe caution should be taken with the Windows Forms Components and .NET 3.0.

I do not want to have customers tied to .NET 3.0, again due to it's miminum requirements.

Freezing .NET 1.x versions of the components is fine, since I am not banking on further features, however please do NOT implement WPF with the existing Windows Forms components.

WPF is such a different standard that I think a different set of controls targetted specifically would be the way to go.

Intorducing new features to the Windows Forms .NET 2.0 components is welcome, but please target .NET 2.0 with these.

An additional product for .NET 3.0 specific features without altering the .NET 2.0 control dependencies is really welcome here.

BTW, Fantastic set of components. Love the Office 2007 Blue/Black styles, and I may have to get the XtraBars Suite soon ;-)
6 December, 2006
We have a fairly large customer base with a windows application deployed on thousands and thousands of desktops.   Getting many of them to deploy .net in many cases is still a headache.  Some are still using win98 (unbelievable, I know, but in large corporate environments, thats just the way it is).  We had to go with 1.1 for our desktop application because of these real world problems.

While the techie me like to agree with many of the comments above (1.1 is absolete, etc), as a customer of devexpress with a very broad customer base ourselves, I think dropping 1.1 at this time is a big mistake.  Minimally bug fixes and patches need to continue to be supported for us to remain a customer of devexpress.
6 December, 2006
Definitely at least NET 2.0.
6 December, 2006
Angel Tijero
We are developing only with .net 2.0.
7 December, 2006
We need support for "mono (1.2)".
7 December, 2006
Alex D.
Freezing the version for .net 1.1 seems the right think to do, unless there are customers that expect(are promised)  some new features for .net 1.1. If this is the case, I suppose freezing should be after implementing them.
7 December, 2006
Hugo Caldeira
For my company:

.NET 1.X is not used now.
.NET 2.0 is what we use in current projects.
.NET 3.X is what we will use in future.
7 December, 2006
We still use .NET 1.x at the moment. Next year we change to .NET 2.0. Although we use all the DevExpress-Components (and love them) our "most loved" component is XPO (it was also the component we were searching for and leaded us to the other DevExpress-Components as well). We really hope that XPO will smoothly be integrated in Linq. And a visual Class-modeler we would like to see as well.

Go on like this. Just superb.
7 December, 2006
Doug Olson
Develop 2.x and higher.  Focus on future technology...  Inhouse, we only use 1.1 to fix existing applications, all new development is 2.x and higher...
7 December, 2006
Marlon R
This is definitely the right move (i.e.  Focusing on .net 2 and 3)
8 December, 2006
I 100% agree!
11 December, 2006
In my company we use .net 1.1, but we will migrate to 2.x as soon as possible.
Sorry for my english, best regards from Spain
11 December, 2006

Recently we sent out an email blast to all the customers of our .NET components asking a simple question:...
19 December, 2006
Good idea.  I'm a little bitter over your company's claim for support of .Net 2.0.  It is a little deceiving when your controls don't support something as simple as nullable types.  It is costing us and your other customer's time to workaround after commiting to use your grid!  This is especially true for projects that have been built upon nullable types in their data and business object layers.  
3 January, 2007
Balbo Flavio
.NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0 are present and future. I think 1.1 is old. So good idea.
30 January, 2007

Please login or register to post comments.