Feedback on CodeBase for .NET CF

Hey all,

Has anyone had experience with "CodeBase for Windows CE - C# & VB.NET
Edition" <http://www.codebase.com/products/windows_ce/NETCompact/>.

Cheers,

Rod O.

NOtcarvinSPAM
Fri Dec 19 13:15:48 CST 2003

Yes, what would you like to know?

Tom

"Roderick S. Olafson" <catchall@magickite.com> wrote in message news:<eiVpSxbxDHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> Hey all,
>
> Has anyone had experience with "CodeBase for Windows CE - C# & VB.NET
> Edition" <http://www.codebase.com/products/windows_ce/NETCompact/>.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rod O.

Rod
Mon Dec 22 13:18:07 CST 2003

Hi Tom,

I have three questions.

1. Did you have any issues using it; specifically, was it buggy under .NET?

2. Did/could you use data binding for UI components?

3. Are the dbf files identical to those used on the PC/did you have any
sync'ing issues?

Thanks,

Rod O.

tcarvin wrote:

> Yes, what would you like to know?
>
> Tom
>
> "Roderick S. Olafson" <catchall@magickite.com> wrote in message news:<eiVpSxbxDHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
>
>>Hey all,
>>
>>Has anyone had experience with "CodeBase for Windows CE - C# & VB.NET
>>Edition" <http://www.codebase.com/products/windows_ce/NETCompact/>.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Rod O.

NOtcarvinSPAM
Mon Dec 29 08:37:13 CST 2003

Rod,

Answers inlined:

> 1. Did you have any issues using it; specifically, was it buggy under .NET?

*** The biggest issue is that their ".NET" version is in fact NOT anything
new. If you've used CodeBase previously then you are familiar with the
very flat nature of their APIs. Well, it's exactly the same in the .NET
version, so you end up writing an object layer on top of an extensive set
of API declares. At least that was what I did. So you have to allocate
an extra week of development time to code the DB object model.

We've had no problems with PPC 2003 devices, but we work with some odd
older devices (Intermec 700 series and the Symbol 2700, 2800, and 8100
series) that are not current upgradable to PPC 2003 and there seems to
be some issues on those devices. Tech support has responded well, but
they are still working on these issues for us. I'm not entirely convinced
it's a flaw in their stuff, but be wary if you coding for older devices. ***

> 2. Did/could you use data binding for UI components?

*** We did not use data binding, and you'd certainly have to code such a
behavior yourself. ***

> 3. Are the dbf files identical to those used on the PC/did you have any
> sync'ing issues?

*** When you use CodeBase you sepecifiy the file structure you want on the
PC side (dBase, Clipper, or FoxPro) but on the PPC side theyr default to
FoxPro format. Not a big deal, just something to be aware of. ***

> Thanks,
>
> Rod O.

*** Let me know if you have any additional questions! ***

Tom

NOtcarvinSPAM
Thu Jan 08 09:14:22 CST 2004

One additional comment. They have resolved the issue with CodeBase
having problems on PPC 2002 devices. Everything works great now!

Tom

NOtcarvinSPAM@eudoramail.com (tcarvin) wrote in message news:<cb08e2b1.0312290637.67a181a7@posting.google.com>...
> Rod,
>
> Answers inlined:
>
> > 1. Did you have any issues using it; specifically, was it buggy under .NET?
>
> *** The biggest issue is that their ".NET" version is in fact NOT anything
> new. If you've used CodeBase previously then you are familiar with the
> very flat nature of their APIs. Well, it's exactly the same in the .NET
> version, so you end up writing an object layer on top of an extensive set
> of API declares. At least that was what I did. So you have to allocate
> an extra week of development time to code the DB object model.
>
> We've had no problems with PPC 2003 devices, but we work with some odd
> older devices (Intermec 700 series and the Symbol 2700, 2800, and 8100
> series) that are not current upgradable to PPC 2003 and there seems to
> be some issues on those devices. Tech support has responded well, but
> they are still working on these issues for us. I'm not entirely convinced
> it's a flaw in their stuff, but be wary if you coding for older devices. ***
>
> > 2. Did/could you use data binding for UI components?
>
> *** We did not use data binding, and you'd certainly have to code such a
> behavior yourself. ***
>
> > 3. Are the dbf files identical to those used on the PC/did you have any
> > sync'ing issues?
>
> *** When you use CodeBase you sepecifiy the file structure you want on the
> PC side (dBase, Clipper, or FoxPro) but on the PPC side theyr default to
> FoxPro format. Not a big deal, just something to be aware of. ***
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rod O.
>
> *** Let me know if you have any additional questions! ***
>
> Tom