Migration from CF 2.0 to 1.0

Hello there,


Many phones utilise the 1.0. Framework. We have been developing for the

compact framework 2.0 and have found that we need to migrate our code
to the framework 1.0.


There doesn't seem to be a clear reference for doing so, can anyone
point me at any information on such a "reverse" migration.


Jason Walter
xposted to
microsoft . public . pocketpc . developer

You could start here, this document lists what is new in .net cf 2.0

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframew..._new_netcf2.asp

From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframew...cf/default.aspx

Andreas

> Many phones utilise the 1.0. Framework. We have been developing for the
>
> compact framework 2.0 and have found that we need to migrate our code
> to the framework 1.0.
>
>
> There doesn't seem to be a clear reference for doing so, can anyone
> point me at any information on such a "reverse" migration.

Good start. Thank You!

Seems like the nice abilities in CF 2.0 are not replicated in 2.0.

DateTmePicker has a 1.0 class we can find, but anchoring and dociking
are not.

I think we may need to ground-up our application as the code may be
unusable under 1.0.

Can someone suggest aphilosophy or something for companies liooking to
develop for both 1.0 and 2.0 CF?


Jason Walter

Be sure to check out the classes on www.opennetcf.org and www.inthehand.com.
Those will help bridge the gap between CF 1 and CF 2.

My philosophy for supporting 1.0 apps and 2.0 apps is that they are separate
apps, and I'm no longer enhancing the 1.0 apps, but this philosopy may not
work for you.

--
Ginny Caughey
..NET Compact Framework MVP


"fnord" <1k0n@jyhad.net> wrote in message
news:1137500430.088547.260400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Good start. Thank You!
>
> Seems like the nice abilities in CF 2.0 are not replicated in 2.0.
>
> DateTmePicker has a 1.0 class we can find, but anchoring and dociking
> are not.
>
> I think we may need to ground-up our application as the code may be
> unusable under 1.0.
>
> Can someone suggest aphilosophy or something for companies liooking to
> develop for both 1.0 and 2.0 CF?
>
>
> Jason Walter
>

Ginny Caughey [MVP] wrote:
> Be sure to check out the classes on www.opennetcf.org and www.inthehand.com.
> Those will help bridge the gap between CF 1 and CF 2.
>
> My philosophy for supporting 1.0 apps and 2.0 apps is that they are separate
> apps, and I'm no longer enhancing the 1.0 apps, but this philosopy may not
> work for you.
>

In addition to the resources that Ginny has noted, I will add that while
they will go a long way to bridging the gap between 1.0 and 2.0, you
still may be looking at a fair amount of work to fit all of the features
and functionality you leveraged in 2.0 into your 1.0-based application.

That said, you may want to evaluate, feature-by-feature, what items are
worth the effort to port (on your own) or use functionality from a
third-party library (like OpenNETCF or InTheHand) to replace, and what
items are not. The end result of this approach (supposing you decide
that some features are _not_ worth the effort to port/replace) will
likely leave you with differences in the feature set between your
1.0-based and 2.0-based applications; you will need to determine if that
trade-off (not porting/replacing 2.0 functionality and having a
different set of functionality in your 1.0 app) is acceptable or not.

--
Nino Benvenuti
http://nino.net/blog

Hi,

> My philosophy for supporting 1.0 apps and 2.0 apps is that they are
> separate apps, and I'm no longer enhancing the 1.0 apps, but this
> philosopy may not work for you.
>

I also have the same estrategy, just that a big part of my deployed apps are
running in PPC 2002 devices and even in 2000 devices, so it's a problem to
simply discard them.

I'm looking forward for those people just to get rid of theirs current
devices and buy new ones

In the mean time the app is evolving in two separated one

--
Ignacio Machin,
ignacio.machin AT dot.state.fl.us
Florida Department Of Transportation