In this question superwiren asks about the pitfalls for converting a .net 2.0 solution to .net 3.5.
What about .net 1.1 to .net 2.0?
Is 2.0 fully backwards compatible with 1.1?
+3
A:
I think its depends on your code, the best option is to perform a trial run and see what errors it will generate. I dont think .NET 2.0 is fully backwards compatible, though they claim it is.
kushin
2008-12-07 19:03:31
+1
A:
I've worked on a couple of ASP.NET 1.1 to 2.0 conversions (medium-sized websites), and we found that the Visual Studio conversion wizard made things pretty easy. We didn't run into any incompatibility issues, and the only things we really changed involved replacing deprecated api calls with new functions. I'd suggest you just give it a shot.
Kevin Tighe
2008-12-07 19:04:28
+1
A:
No it is not. There were a numerous amount of breaking changes presented in 2.0, but depending on how your application was coded, it may not be affected at all. Here's a document with links to all the changes from 1.1 to 2.0...
Assuming you didn't use anything in the application that was introduced in 2.0, then there's a larger chance of backwards compatibility.
invenetix
2008-12-07 19:07:23
+1
A:
The only issue I've found in my code is having two controls in asp.net called the same thing with different casing. this used to work in 1.1, but crashes 2.0
It's a codesmell anyway, so there's no reason to cry about it
AndreasKnudsen
2008-12-07 21:46:56