Framework version issues

[Tomas Vera]

Hello All,

I'm running into a problem that I don't know how to solve (properly,
at least).

Our web servers are running Win2K and have Framework v1.0.3705 running
on them.

We have a DLL that we use to verify product registration information
from our clients.

Earlier this year, our (product) development team switched to VS 2003
development tools. Recently, a new version of our product verification
DLL was compiled (along with a Windows app which uses the DLL) and
distributed to our product sales and support staff.

Yesterday I tried installing this DLL on the web server and the web
process locked up (but not the server). On the server's console,
appeared a dialog with this error message:

"MS VC++ Debug Library (Dialog Title)"
"Program C:\WINNT\MIcrosoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\aspnet_wp.exe
R6029
- This application can not run using the active version of the MS.NET
runtime.
Please contact Application support team for more info"

Previously, this application was compiled using the VS2002 tools, but
the DLLs VS project has since been converted to the VS2003 format.

Suspecting a framework version problem, I downloaded the DLLs source
from SourceSafe into a local drive, and re-created the project using
the VS2002 tools that we still use for website development. I rebuilt
the project, and tested on our deployment server, and everything seems
OK.

As far as I can tell these are my options:
1. Install framework v1.1 on the web servers. IT people not too happy
about this one ("It's working, don't mess with it!")
2. Continue re-compiling changes using the VS2002 tools. I'm not too
happy about this one, since it means there will be two versions of
what should be one single DLL.
3. Regress the DLL's project so that it is a VS2002 project again. The
product developers are not too happy about this one since they will
have to maintain 2 compilers on the build machine.

Also, just to complicate matters:
The original developers stayed with VS2002 because (as I was told) our
Commerce Server2002 installation on the web server does not work with
VS2003 compiled web apps.

My preference is to upgrade the Framework version on the web servers
and figure out how to get the CommerceServer app to work with the new
Framework, but I could be persuaded to try something else.

So... Does anyone have any experience with a situation such as this?
How did you resolve it?

-tomas

//-----------------------------
// Tomas Vera
//
// (e-mail address removed)
//-----------------------------

 

[Patrick Altman]

Tomas,

I believe, but am not 100% sure, that when VS.NET 2003 was installed it
upgraded your Framework to v1.1 as well. Then as you compiled the dll, it
was compiled with the v1.1 of the Framework. I believe by default this
would be the case with compiling with either 2002 or 2003 versions of VS.NET
on the same machine. Thus, when you install that dll on the webserver that
is running v1.0, it would have unpredictable results like locking up the
webserver.

I would recommend upgrading the Framework on the webserver to v1.1. Do you
not have some test servers configured identical to your production server so
that you can 1) reproduce the problem in a test environment, and 2) upgrade
the Framework to prove that that will fix the problem as well as remove the
fears the IT folks would have about updating software in the production
environment. If you don't have a test server, then you absolutely need to
build one and use it.

- Patrick Altman

 

[Tomas Vera]

Yes, we have the test servers (this is where the problem was
identified, the live server was not affected with a bad DLL).

And, although there are two versions of the Framework on my
development machine, VS2002 is hard-wired to work with v1.0 of the
Framework, as vs2003 is hardwired to work with v1.1 (try uninstalling
the "required" framework version and see what happens!).

As I mentioned, I'm holding out for the Framework upgrade on the web
servers, that would make life so much easier. I'm still researching
the CommerceServer 2002 issue, though.

Thanks, for your input.