We have enterprise licenses for both MonoDroid and MonoTouch from Xamarin.
Our MonoTouch is production so we can't install Beta versions, but we are learning/testing MonoDroid and wish to install the Beta version.
How can we have this configuration when the update channel in MonoDevelop allows for only 1 mode (Release/Beta/Alpha)
You can switch between channels, and you do not have to install everything MonoDevelop offers you. This means that you can:
Switch to stable channel and install MonoTouch updates (and ignore anything else)
Switch to beta channel and install Mono for Android updates (and ignore anything else)
This is of course not optimal, since MonoDevelop will not offer updates for the channel you don't currently have selected, and you'll also be offered updates you may not want. The first problem can be solved by switching channels periodically (for instance once a week).
Related
Looking for a download to MONO Runtime 3.2 but I just can find this for Mac.
See HERE
Are there no releases for Linux/Windows ?
Are there no releases for Linux?
The tarball is all you need to use/install Mono in Linux.
If what you want is that your favourite distro imports this version of Mono into its packaging system (e.g.: apt-get), then you would need to ask in the forums, mailing lists or other online resources about that distro.
Are there no releases for Windows?
First, I will ask you another question, are you sure do you really need Mono for Windows? For most use cases, Windows already bundles .NET into the last versions. Furthermore, Mono for Windows is not a top priority platform for the Mono team and may lack features or have worse performance than on Linux/Mac. Therefore Mono for windows is only really useful for certain uncommon scenarios.
If you're really interested in those uncommon use cases, then keep bugging Mono maintainers in their forums, mailing lists or IRC, to remind them to package it (it's not really a priority anymore since this platform is not something they target with their commercial offerings).
UPDATE: A Xamarin employee stated that the installer would be available when version 3.2.3 is released, and they complied with their promise because 3.2.3 has been released and the windows installer is available in the download page.
I'm starting a new project that'll require Mono and mod_mono to run under CentOS. There are two versions of Mono: the release which is 2.10.8, and the development branch, which is 3.0.7 as of today.
I'm wondering what would be the right version to start. Obviously the stable version would be my choice, but I'm not sure what Mono 3.0 adds that could be missing from 2.10. Note that the project will be ASP.NET 4.0, using MVC4.
What version would be recommended? The stable but older one (dates back from 19-Dec-2011!) or the more recent one?
Mono 2.10 supports ASP.NET MVC3, since you want to use MVC4, you'll have to use a later version.
More recent versions of Mono have solved a lot of issues in 2.10, including issues related to ASP.NET.
So you may want to go for a more recent version. I don't think stability will be an issue,
but you will have to perform proper tests to determine if the version you are using supports everything you are trying to do in your application.
Don't deploy to production without testing.
UPDATE: Correction, there is 'partial' MVC4 support in 2.10 and no support for async.
So while you might be able to use 2.10, your mileage may vary depending on what features your app uses
Some questions about Simple.Data and Mono:
Can I safely choose Simple.Data for a new project using Mono today?
There is the intention to maintain Mono compatibility in future versions?
The features are the same as the version for Windows?
Some testimony from someone who has already used in Mono?
Many thanks!
There will be a new official Mono build soon as part of the RC process. For now you should be able to clone the GitHub repo (http://github.com/markrendle/Simple.Data) and build the latest version.
Mono support is a requirement of the project, and will continue in all future versions.
Everything that works on Windows and MS.NET should work on Mono on OSX and Linux. If you find that something does not work, that is a bug and should be reported at http://github.com/markrendle/Simple.Data/Issues .
I have not personally got any projects using Simple.Data on Mono, so I can't offer a real testimony, but there are ~700 tests which all pass using Mono 2.10 on Mac OSX against a SQL Server DB.
With the new firefox we are shipping more and more libraries as the XPom interfaces we interact with are changing. We are at 10 dlls and increasing, each with a size of almost 2M.
This size is a concern for some users.
While we look at restructuring the library to seperate the parts we can make common between them, we are thinking about how we might reduce space on the disk while supporting version upgrades.
For instance, user has FireFox 3.6 and 4.0 installed and when our product is installed we install a dll for each version. When Firefox is 4.0 upgraded (say to 6.0) how might we now install from the msi the missing dll for 6.0 support.
Any ideas on how we could achieve this?
Are we worrying for no reason?
My first thought was we 'AllowAdvertise' and when FF tries to load the dll as directed by chrome it will cause the install, it doesn't seem to work.
My first reaction is to suggest that you move away from XPCOM and towards js-ctypes. After all, this is the direction that Mozilla is pushing extension developers (see Wladimir Palant's comments for example). If there isn't anything in your binary code that absolutely positively requires use of XPCOM, you'll be much happier to ship a DLL that interfaces with JS when needed via js-ctypes.
I guess that your extension is Windows-only so supporting multiple platforms is not an issue. A possible short-term solution:
Have a separate extension package for each Firefox version, mark it as compatible with this Firefox version only (e.g. minVersion 4.0 and maxVersion 4.*).
When your extension is installed, install the version that is compatible with user's installed Firefox version.
Make sure that your extensions have an updateURL entry that is pointing to your server. It is important to have %APP_VERSION% in the URL.
Make sure to test Firefox betas and prepare a new extension version in time for the next Firefox release (releases are scheduled on Tuesdays every 6 weeks, next release being on September 27th).
Configure your server to indicate different packages as updates depending on the Firefox version used. So an update check with %APP_VERSION% 4.0.1 would be sent to extension-ff4.xpi while %APP_VERSION% 6.0 would get extension-ff6.xpi.
Firefox will always check for extension updates when the application is updated. If you can give it a compatible update it will install it. But preparing new packages every six weeks requires tons of effort and I guess that you want to refactor your code/move to js-ctypes ASAP. Oh, and I think that you need to ignore the unlikely scenario that some user has more than one Firefox version installed.
After a fresh install of Lion and Xcode 4.1 from the Mac App Store, I would like to install another version of Xcode alongside.
I heard that this perfectly safe to install it in another directory (considering the first to be on /Developer). The only thing to remember is that running xcodebuild would result in launching the last one installed.
But I have another issue while installing it, even f I changed the directory it clearly says that it will upgrade Xcode Toolset, System Tools and UNIX Development and that they can only be located is /Developer and for one installation per system, here is a screenshot :
So how to have another clean instance of Xcode and SDKs without screwing up the production one ?
Thanks a lot.
It doesn't seem to be possible to install the System Tools on both versions. I've never had success with that.
One thing to note, if you install an older version of xCode side-by-side with the latest version, the "Build Archive" function in the Organizer will not function. The only remedy I found was to remove both xCodes and reinstall the one I wanted to use for building the archive. It was a painful process.
Actually you can do this (or at least I seem to be able to). At times I have had three separate instances of XCode installed - an older XCode 3.x (which I've subsequently gotten rid of), an XCode 4 production, an XCode 5 beta; all in separate directories.
The key thing for me was calling the command line tool to tell which system is the "primary" xcode for the purposes of running xcodebuild, instruments, agvtool and a bunch of others: xcode-select -switch /Developer (just man xcode-select ftw).
So, I have a 4.0.2 build as primary now, and keep upgrading the iOS5 betas. I try them out, but when I want to cut a production build using 4.0.2, I ensure that my system knows that /Developer is current, switching it if I need to. FWIW, there is risk that the single-set-of-System-tools could be broken when you replace them with the latest set, but that's (so far) never hit me.
Also, for reference there is another discussion along similar lines here: Install xCode 3.2.3 w/ iPhone SDK 4, get "Base SDK missing", can't see other SDKs