Just to make things MORE clear.
1. The library was long lacking documentation and samples because it was
free. and all time spent working on it was purely donated. Still it had an
MSDN-style library, and since most .NET code is self documenting, thousands
of people were still able to makle use of it.
2. Any controls that were removed were done so becasue CF 2.0 added them and
we feel that bloat for the sake of redundancy isn't worthwhile.
3. We renamed things to follow some sort of standard and make it a cleaner
library.
4. True SDF 2.0 is now $50. Last I checked that's really, really close to
free when you look at the cost of a project and how long it would take you
to duplicate what it provides. You also get all the source code for that.
Name another library that does that for you. And SDF 1.4 is still free and
readily available.
5. A simple cost-benefit analysis by an elementary school student could
easily deduce that if your time is worth anything, then if you can save even
a few hours of work by leveraging someone else's work, then paying for it is
worthwhile. If this weren't the case, we'd all develop our own OS and all
software to run on it.
6. We do have samples and test harnesses. I'd say that constitutes a few
lines of sample code. We have articels using our libraries. That might be
contrued as a sample.
7. We encourage people to write their own code. We just feel it's a better
use of developer resources to develop their own product that solves their
customer's business problem or provides some interesting feature rather than
work on the underlying guts of things.
8. By all means, shop around. We're not the only CF developers on the
planet. Out libraries aren't the only ones out there. Use what fits your
business and your project. If it's not us, I'm fine with that.
9. As Abe Lincoln once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak and be proven one." Thanks for speaking up.
--
Chris Tacke
OpenNETCF Consulting
Managed Code in the Embedded World
www.opennetcf.com
--
"Donsab" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3C34F053-DE4B-4036-88AD-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just to make things clear.
>
> I used to develop ce apps using some ever-lacking-documentation controls
> from the should-be-good OpennetCf library.
>
> Unfortunately, as the v2.0 was finally released, many controls was removed
> from the collection, some others changed properties names or even removed
> some properties, and some others were no longer supported and were not
> free
> anymore! (Those guys like making $$ with our feedback)
>
> No way to load the forms in VS2005 to make an update, messing up the whole
> apps. And i spoiled time removing them one by one in the source code, and
> replacing them by well behaving and designed controls from the Compact
> framework.
>
> SO BE CAREFUL!
> OpennetCF is not worth the time you spend on it. These guys dont even take
> time to write a line to help use their lib.
> If you like good controls, you'd better develop them by yourself, this is
> not as challenging as it sounds. (and MS CF2 have good basic controls to
> start with).
>
>
>
> "<ctacke/>" wrote:
>
>> Have you ever wanted to integrate a really good calendar control with
>> your
>> application? Maybe something that actually looks like the Calnedar in
>> Pocket Outlook? Well now you can.
>>
>> OpenNETCF Calendar Controls provide a Month View, Week View and Agenda
>> View
>> similar to what is used in the Pocket Outlook Calendar application. With
>> the
>> OpenNETCF Calendar Controls you can integrate calendaring functionality
>> right within your application. The controls are completely customizable
>> using the Visual Studio 2005 designer and you can also customize the
>> painting through special events while the controls are being rendered.
>>
>> http://www.opennetcf.com/controls/calendar
>>
>>
>>
Similar Threads
