[GH-ISSUE #128] Upgrade to .NET Framework 3.5 #63

Closed
opened 2026-02-27 15:48:33 +03:00 by kerem · 15 comments
Owner

Originally created by @tidusjar on GitHub (May 13, 2015).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/quasar/Quasar/issues/128

Originally assigned to: @MaxXor on GitHub.

This is a question:
Just wondering why we do not upgrade the .NET version? With 2.0 we cannot make use of any good asynchronous tasks? Multithreading is a lot more difficult and cumbersome in 2.0...

Originally created by @tidusjar on GitHub (May 13, 2015). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/quasar/Quasar/issues/128 Originally assigned to: @MaxXor on GitHub. This is a question: Just wondering why we do not upgrade the .NET version? With 2.0 we cannot make use of any good asynchronous tasks? Multithreading is a lot more difficult and cumbersome in 2.0...
kerem 2026-02-27 15:48:33 +03:00
Author
Owner

@bitterypaul commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

We can safely change the build config to target .NET 4.0 without breaking compatibility with Windows XP

<!-- gh-comment-id:101739037 --> @bitterypaul commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): We can safely change the build config to target .NET 4.0 without breaking compatibility with Windows XP
Author
Owner

@tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

@bitterypaul I think it would be a good solution then we can use the more recent things in the .NET framework.

<!-- gh-comment-id:101739314 --> @tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): @bitterypaul I think it would be a good solution then we can use the more recent things in the .NET framework.
Author
Owner

@DragonzMaster commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

that's to make the project compatible with most of OS
if we upgrade it to 3.5 (as an example) we won't be sure that it would work on most of Win XP as many of them uses 2.0

<!-- gh-comment-id:101749361 --> @DragonzMaster commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): that's to make the project compatible with most of OS if we upgrade it to 3.5 (as an example) we won't be sure that it would work on most of Win XP as many of them uses 2.0
Author
Owner

@tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

@DragonzMaster I'm not questioning anyone here but if Microsoft don't support Win XP, should we? I can see a lot of benefit to upgrade the .NET version.

<!-- gh-comment-id:101751340 --> @tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): @DragonzMaster I'm not questioning anyone here but if Microsoft don't support Win XP, should we? I can see a lot of benefit to upgrade the .NET version.
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

@bitterypaul Of course. The .NET framework version has no reason to break compatibility with Windows XP.

<!-- gh-comment-id:101753194 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): @bitterypaul Of course. The .NET framework version has no reason to break compatibility with Windows XP.
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

@DragonzMaster These days, most machines (even the few running Windows XP for some reason) should at least have v3.5

<!-- gh-comment-id:101753375 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): @DragonzMaster These days, most machines (even the few running Windows XP for some reason) should at least have v3.5
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

I would agree with @tidusjar ... 3.5 is huge enough. Each version has an immense amount of wonderful changes to simplify and improve code.

<!-- gh-comment-id:101753616 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): I would agree with @tidusjar ... 3.5 is huge enough. Each version has an immense amount of wonderful changes to simplify and improve code.
Author
Owner

@DragonzMaster commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015):

i know that win xp is the only one which come with 2.0 instead of 3.5 which came with win vista and newer
anyway you can do what you want

<!-- gh-comment-id:101782422 --> @DragonzMaster commented on GitHub (May 13, 2015): i know that win xp is the only one which come with 2.0 instead of 3.5 which came with win vista and newer anyway you can do what you want
Author
Owner

@tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015):

@MaxXor what is you opinion on this?

<!-- gh-comment-id:101969875 --> @tidusjar commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015): @MaxXor what is you opinion on this?
Author
Owner

@MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015):

I believe it's okay if we change the target framework to 3.5. :)

I will do this later.

<!-- gh-comment-id:101970970 --> @MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015): I believe it's okay if we change the target framework to 3.5. :) I will do this later.
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015):

Wonderful. :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:102085797 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 14, 2015): Wonderful. :)
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 18, 2015):

@MaxXor Would you please create a new branch for upgrading the framework to 3.5? There are many places I see that would benefit greatly from the new features offered by v3.5

Also, would you consider changing the following code signature for invoking?:
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { });
to something like this:
Invoke(() => { });


I just would like to add that the two empty parenthesis can be more clear because it can contain parameters, and empty parenthesis would show others that there are no parameters. :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:103223939 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 18, 2015): @MaxXor Would you please create a new branch for upgrading the framework to 3.5? There are many places I see that would benefit greatly from the new features offered by v3.5 Also, would you consider changing the following code signature for invoking?: <code>Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { });</code> to something like this: <code>Invoke(() => { });</code> <hr /> I just would like to add that the two empty parenthesis can be more clear because it can contain parameters, and empty parenthesis would show others that there are no parameters. :)
Author
Owner

@MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 19, 2015):

@yankejustin
Yes, I'll do this. :)

Uhm, I think it's not that important to change the Invokes, or? 😕

<!-- gh-comment-id:103365620 --> @MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 19, 2015): @yankejustin Yes, I'll do this. :) Uhm, I think it's not that important to change the Invokes, or? :confused:
Author
Owner

@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 19, 2015):

It is not that important. It is more of a preference. :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:103562143 --> @yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 19, 2015): It is not that important. It is more of a preference. :)
Author
Owner

@MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 22, 2015):

Upgrade is done, you can now start using more powerful methods from the .NET Framework 3.5 CP.

If there are any bugs, please report them.

<!-- gh-comment-id:104765676 --> @MaxXor commented on GitHub (May 22, 2015): Upgrade is done, you can now start using more powerful methods from the .NET Framework 3.5 CP. If there are any bugs, please report them.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/Quasar#63
No description provided.