Sunday, July 27, 2008
« Randy Pausch, rest in peace | Main | Using CSLA Light, Part 1 »

I have put CSLA .NET 3.5.1 release candidate 0 online at www.lhotka.net/cslanet/download.aspx.

Version 3.5.1 has some very important bug fixes for 3.5, especially around some of the new property syntax and Windows Forms data binding.

If you are using any of the new 3.5 property syntax, or are using Windows Forms data binding, you really should test 3.5.1 ASAP!

There's only one breaking change in how a "new PropertyInfo(...)" expression is written - I had to remove a constructor. This is unfortunate, but necessary, because the overload was ambiguous with another overload when the property type was string. The compiler will find these for you, and they are easily resolved - just check the change log for info.

Beta 2 was quite stable - no bug reports, only one feature change for data binding - so I expect RC0 to be very good. Please let me know if you encounter issues.

Monday, July 28, 2008 7:47:27 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Hi Rocky,

Do you know whether the bug fixes are already in the CSLA version you posted for the CSLA Light Preview (http://www.lhotka.net/weblog/CSLALightPreviewRelease.aspx)? I ask because I downloaded and started working with this version last week so I am wondering whether I need to do something here.

Thanks very much for all your help
GA
Monday, July 28, 2008 10:13:07 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
To be clear, CSLA Light only works with CSLA .NET 3.6, not 3.5 or 3.5.1.

On the CSLA Light download page you'll also find the CSLA .NET 3.6 download links - right now it is all one big work in progress.
Monday, July 28, 2008 4:13:26 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Hey Rocky!

Thanks for your response. I hear ya. I understand it's work in progress. And I understand Light will only work with Full version 3.6. I have to get a silverlight up and running soon so I really have no choice but to live on the edge and use whatever you got out there, however alpha it may be. My question to you is, assuming 3.6 is based on 3.5, and knowing from this post that 3.5 has been updated for bugs, my question to you is, do you happen to know if the 3.6 code base you posted recently also has these, bugs in which case I need to somehow get these bug fixes in the 3.6 code base.

Thanks for your help
GA
Monday, July 28, 2008 4:24:33 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Yes, 3.6 should include the changes from 3.5.1. I've been merging the trunk into the branch periodically to keep them in sync (though we've now made big enough changes in 3.6 in terms of file organization that merging is no longer practical).

So if there's something in 3.5.1 that isn't in 3.6 it is something we missed, and that's a bug, so please let me know.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:01:25 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Thanks Rocky for the response.

I have another question for you when you get a chance, which I could have sworn I posted here yesterday but I guess my mind is playing tricks on me again. Anyway, is there a reason why in the 3.6 code base type Csla.Core.ContextDictionary is not marked as serializable? The only reason I noticed is that currently I am working on a SL app using 3.6. This SL app is actually an addition to an existing system which currently has a win forms UI. The win forms app was using CSLA 3.0 but I upgraded it to 3.6 as part of this new SL addition because I want both apps to reference the same physical code (in the same manner the test cases you posted show how this can be done). The SL app is using WCF for its RPC's (server side DP XYZ) while the win forms app will continue using remoting. Which is where I ran into the problem because after I upgraded the win forms app to CSLA 3.6 the app bombed complaining that type Csla.Core.ContextDictionary is not marked as serializable. I went ahead and marked it as serializable and things are working now but I am wondering if perhaps there was some intent on your part in not marking it as serializable. I can't see why it would hurt marking it as serializable but then again I know you do alot of reflection so perhaps you have logic somewhere that says "if type is marked as serializable then do this else do that"

As always thanks for all your help
GA
Comments are closed.