.NET 4 plugins?

[McBainUK]

Does NextPVR support plugins which target .NET 4?

[sub]

No, I doubt it (though I haven't tried). The host process is running in a .NET 2.0 environment, so I doubt dependenices on .NET 4 components would be resolved.

[imilne]

I think I tried it once (by mistake because I hadn't changed my compile options), and as expected it didn't work.

Is there any particular reason to stay with 2.0? Not that I'm advocating a switch or anything. Just wondering...

Iain

[mvallevand]

Sub only wants to have 2.0 as a target http://forums.nextpvr.com/showthread.php...DE-to-use& It's a shame really but I never really understood what the big issue with the "extra baggage" was.

Martin

[sub]

Sub only wants to have 2.0 as a target http://forums.nextpvr.com/showthread.php...DE-to-use& It's a shame really but I never really understood what the big issue with the "extra baggage" was.

It wasnt so much that I was concerned about extra baggage in different versions of the .NET runtime, but rather a decision based on what .NET runtime each version of Windows comes pre-installed with and what I needed from the runtime. ie, there was no point in requiring 3.5, and making the user have to download this (130+ MB) before they could install NextPVR, when it still uses the same CLR v2.0 as .NET 2.0, which was already on their machine, and was all NextPVR needed.

[whurlston]

I'm pretty sure I targeted .Net 3.5 with my old Netflix plugin or the DVD insert notification I never released. I would need to double check though.

[sub]

I think up to .NET 3.5 it used the same version of the CLR, so as long as you stuck to the core classes, you could be right.

[reven]

oh thats pretty disappointing, i love my default variables in .net 4. another vote to upgrade, but i understand your reasoning.

[steeb]

It wasnt so much that I was concerned about extra baggage in different versions of the .NET runtime, but rather a decision based on what .NET runtime each version of Windows comes pre-installed with and what I needed from the runtime. ie, there was no point in requiring 3.5, and making the user have to download this (130+ MB) before they could install NextPVR, when it still uses the same CLR v2.0 as .NET 2.0, which was already on their machine, and was all NextPVR needed.

But given that the core was supposed to aid users driving old XP (and variant systems) but simply has not worked with DirectX which appears to have caused major problems with installs. How is 130 + MB detrimental to a software install these days?

Dial up, yes that would take for ever. But is any serious user of something like NextPVR on dial up?

cheers

steeb

[sub]

But given that the core was supposed to aid users driving old XP (and variant systems) but simply has not worked with DirectX which appears to have caused major problems with installs. How is 130 + MB detrimental to a software install these days?

This wasnt specifically aimed at XP, but rather saving users of XP/Vista/Win7 from having to download and install it. I didnt need it, so there didnt seem much point in adding one more step to complicate things for users wanting to try NextPVR.

Regarding the DirectX runtime problem on XP, I think that was solved in one of the post 2.2.6 patches, so hopefully wont be an issue in the next release.