the core is realeasing the their framework of v3 in parallel with v4 right now (which is good because .net 1.1 isn't "legacy" or "old" yet).

If you develop for v4 (.net 2.0), you're cutting off what I would think would be where most of the dnn installs are still in, v3.

If you stay back with v3, it will work in both. Its a good thing; but it also sucks because vs2005 is so much better than 03 and its a shame not to be able to use it.

I agree... build for DNN 3.  I use one source base and then tag a few lines of code based on the version of DNN I'm compiling for so that I can change code where DNN 3 and DNN 4 are not compatible (such as sending email) it's easy and quick.

I have nothing in vs2005 in production and I don't think I will until everyone is up on DNN 4.  And that does suck... having vs2005 and not being able to use it is a waste.  It's like having a private jet to Punta Cana fired up outside your office and ready to go but your waiting on others to join you.

I feel that all the comments so far are totally valid. My personal opinion is that the factors that drive me toward DNN4 development are:

* Object Data Sources. This allows you to create a web control and bind directly to it and still maintain proper full n-tier design. This is no small thing. It is a new concept and once you start using it you will not want to go back. See: http://www.adefwebserver.com/DotNetNukeHELP/DNN_Module4/DotNetNuke_module_7.htm

* Generics. This is something that can be simulated in ASP.NET 1.1 but with a LOT more code. Yes you can create strongly typed classes but to do so you have to implement interfaces etc. With Generics you simply code something like:

  Public Shared Function GuestBook_GetAll(ByVal ModuleId As Integer) As List(Of   GuestBookInfo)
    Return CBO.FillCollection(Of GuestBookInfo)(DataProvider.Instance().YourCompany_GuestBook_GetAll(ModuleId))
  End Function

and you have a strongly typed class.

* GridView and other controls. A bunch of commonly used controls simply don't exist in ASP.NET 1.1 Once you start using them you will not want to try to code the same thing without them.

Again, if you are selling modules on snowcovered.com you still have a market for DNN2 modules not to mention DNN3.

...ah, man...i love your tutorials.

Hey Michael, do you do anything to keep your modules compatible with v3 versions, such as, have a method to recompile them with the v1.1 compiler? ...or do you just do mostly contracting work and opt to use dnn4?

thanks man

Darren

DeveloperMCDBA wrote:

Hey Michael, do you do anything to keep your modules compatible with v3 versions,

No to use the best part of ASP.NET 2.0 you lose ASP.NET 1.1 compatibility. A year from now it wont matter :)

adefwebserver wrote:

No to use the best part of ASP.NET 2.0 you lose ASP.NET 1.1 compatibility. A year from now it wont matter :)

I doubt that very much!  I respectfully submit that MS has had to revise (downward) their new version adoption rates time and time again (and with increasing frequency & size)...  Simply put the older versions are often "good enough," the new versions costly, require recertification testing--and still break things...  MS has become their own worst competition.  How many of you still have Windows2000 servers?  How many of you still have users on OfficeXP (or even 9x)?

Unless & until MS resolves some of the compatibility problems....there's going to remain A LOT of .Net 1.1 out there...

RLyda wrote:

  How many of you still have Windows2000 servers?..  Unless & until MS resolves some of the compatibility problems....there's going to remain A LOT of .Net 1.1 out there...

As a person who is still running Windows 2000 (I LOVE Windows 2000) I see your point. However, people do upgrade when the new version offers something the old version doesn't. In this case it is massive code reduction. See my Blog:

http://dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/355/Default.aspx