Modification for existing custom application blocks

Topics: Pre-release discussions
Dec 26, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Are we going to easily port our own application blocks to EntLib 3.0?
Because moving existing code from EntLib 1 to EntLib 2 was a nightmare.
I've had that experience and don't want it again!!!


--- Experience with 3.0 CTP (I think, it's going to rock!) ---
I currently have my own application (block) written with EntLib 2.0.

I only updated references and made few directory modifications to "2.0" code to be used by "3.0 CTP", it worked perfectly. I haven't touched the existing code.
-------

So I assume that, the basic class architecture won't change in 3.0.
Please don't!
I can't rewrite the whole Runtime-Configuration-Design code again, to move to new version!!!
Dec 27, 2006 at 10:04 PM
There are no promises :), but I don't think you will see the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 that you saw from 1.0 to 2.0. From my experience with EntLib 3.0 thus far and the notes in the readme file, the focus has been on new application block(s) and new enhancements and not significant architecture changes.

The reason we saw many changes from 1.0 to 2.0 is because we saw the release of a new .NET Framework, and Patterns and Practices wanted to take advantage of the Framework base class libraries where appropriate.

For custom application blocks, I would look at the Application Block Software Factory for assistance and guidance with your custom application blocks. This should be supported in the long-term and help with the transition between future versions of Enterprise Library.

Regards,

Dave

___________________

David Hayden
Microsoft MVP C#
http://www.davidhayden.com/
Dec 29, 2006 at 2:14 AM
David is correct - we aren't planning any significant changes to the core architecture. While we will be revving all of the assemblies and we will incorporate the odd fix or improvement, upgrading your own blocks to v3 should generally be a matter of updating the references and recompiling. If additional changes are required, they should be very simple.

thanks
Tom