[mono-android] .NET 4.0 + library's

[Wally McClure]

I get this question alot.  This is the situation across all of the mobile platforms.  there isn't a clean version of .NET on the devices that I am familiar with.

MonoTouch on iPhone supports .NET 2 with a lot of features from SL and .NET 3.5(LINQ being a big one).  I believe that the next MT version will add many .NET 4 features.  I'm telling people its .NET 3.5 with certain changes appropiate for iOS and that the next version will be .NET 4.
Same is true with Mono for Android, except, that they have many of the .NET 4 features already, such as the PFX features.  I'm telling people its .NET 4 with certain changes appropiate for the device.
WP7 has the same issue.  It is basically SL 3 with more features.
 
It just makes it easier in people's minds.  
 
> From: jpryor at novell.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:36:37 -0400
> To: monodroid at lists.ximian.com
> Subject: Re: [mono-android] .NET 4.0 + library's
> 
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Remco Jansen wrote:
> > I got a simple question, because cant find the answerers on the internet.
> > Is .NET framework 4.0 supported, are there any often uses library's, that are not supported?
> 
> That's not specific enough. :-)
> 
> The class libraries that Mono for Android provides is...interesting. Succinctly, it's a .NET 4.0-influenced assembly set with an overlapping set of Silverlight types and members, lacking the UI bits. (Which likely doesn't help at all.)
> 
> Instead of asking about framework versions, you should instead ask about types (and possibly assemblies). :-)
> 
> For example, the Action<...> and Func<...> family of delegate types are supported, up through Action`16 and Func`17, which is what .NET 4.0 and Silverlight support.
> 
> However, the IEnumerable<T> interfaces are not covariant, and thus is like Silverlight. The C# compiler we provide on OSX is C#4-ish (it supports generic variance declarations, but no `dynamic`, and generic variance isn't entirely helpful when most of the class library is lacking support...).
> 
> Assemblies are .NET 4.0-like, not Silverlight-like, so the System.Net namespace is in System.dll (not System.Net.dll). System.Xml.dll contains XmlDocument and System.Xml.Linq.dll contains XDocument, like .NET 4.0 (while Silverlight drops XmlDocument and moves XDocument into System.Xml.dll).
> 
> In short, there isn't really a short way to answer your question, except "maybe." You can also view the class library documentation, which lists all of the namespaces and types provided:
> 
> http://docs.mono-android.net/
> http://mono-android.net/Documentation/Assemblies
> 
> A related question is whether Portable Library Projects are supported. I don't know; I haven't tested them. They are not a priority for 1.0, but we will support them in a later release.
> 
> Finally, are there any assemblies that aren't supported? Regarding framework assemblies, it again depends upon what your reference is: with respect to .NET 4.0, we're missing Windows Worfklow and Windows Presentation Foundation (among others, I 'm sure), and the WCF we provide is Silverlight-like, not .NET 4.0-like. If your reference is Silverlight, we're missing System.WIndows.dll and anything related to it.
> 
> This variance makes it ~impossible to say whether any existing assemblies will work with Mono for Android without recompilation (unless they're MonoTouch assemblies; those should work). In all likelihood they won't (especially considering assembly naming + assembly versioning), but it should be fairly straightforward to recompile the code against the Mono for Android assemblies, and we fully expect recompilation to work for most things except UI code (which likely won't work at all).
> 
> - Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monodroid mailing list
> Monodroid at lists.ximian.com
> 
> UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/private/monodroid/attachments/20110323/36e5f402/attachment.html