none
Is the latest build a No-Go-Live Preview?

    Question

  • Hi,

    Given the fact that Reactive Framework is going to be available as part of the BCL and includes a backport of Parallel Extensions, I am eager to integrate it right now in the what we are doing (as it solves a couple of problems we are having at the time). In fact we have been avoiding use Parallel Extensions because our development is in .Net 3.5, but there wasnt a released version either.

    The question is simple: Is it safe to assume (defects aside) that this is a build that can be integrated into commercial software? Does the current build licensing allow it?

    Greetings
    Federico
    Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:08 PM

Answers

  • Correct, the current release is not the final set of API. This release is mainly there to retrieve feedback as well as to preview the radical change in programming paradigm to our customers. Expect regular updates to this release.

    This feedback on the license is definately something we will take in consideration for future updates.
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:34 PM

All replies

  • No; the installer has a standard pre-release license (testing/development only, no production distribution).

    Bummer, too. I got all excited, thinking there was a real release.

           -Steve
    Programming blog: http://nitoprograms.blogspot.com/
      Including my TCP/IP .NET Sockets FAQ

    Microsoft Certified Professional Developer
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:29 AM
  • Bummer.

    I wonder if someone from the team could give us a hint as to whether Rx is likely to get a release with a license that would allow its commercial use? Hopefully it won't be kept "testing only" until it's rolled into .Net 5, or whatever!

    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:45 AM
  • I assume that the license is due to possible API flux before the final release.

    Note that the Rx library on the main page is not *just* the Rx library. They also backported PLINQ and Tasks to .NET 3.5 SP1, which is awesome!

    So, I believe that the license will become a release license at the time of .NET 4 release (or shortly afterwards). At that time, they'll know that PLINQ/Tasks aren't going to change and can be released for .NET 3.5 SP1 as well. If they gave us a release license now, then that would lock the API for PLINQ and Tasks, preventing any fixes or enhancements between now and when .NET 4 is released.

    Of course, this is mere speculation.

            -Steve
    Programming blog: http://nitoprograms.blogspot.com/
      Including my TCP/IP .NET Sockets FAQ

    Microsoft Certified Professional Developer
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:44 PM
  • Correct, the current release is not the final set of API. This release is mainly there to retrieve feedback as well as to preview the radical change in programming paradigm to our customers. Expect regular updates to this release.

    This feedback on the license is definately something we will take in consideration for future updates.
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:34 PM
  • Thanks Jeffrey, as everybody noted here we are eager to use it :D but well seams like we have to wait :(

    Greetings
    Federico
    Friday, November 20, 2009 4:05 PM
  • Could we get a "Go Live" license for Rx on .NET 4 Beta 2, seeing as how that is also "Go Live"? Obviously .NET 4 could still see breaking changes, API changes, but the odds are low. I think everyone here would be willing to take that risk with Rx, just slap a disclaimer on Rx saying that the API is subject to change and should only be used for production in conjunction with the .NET 4 Beta.

    Of course I'm not a Microsoft lawyer, but that's what I'd like to see happen.
    Monday, November 23, 2009 6:55 PM
  • Agreed. A "Go Live" license that was tied to .Net 4.0 Beta2 (and/or .Net 4.0 RTM) would suit us also, as we have to move to .Net 4.0 ASAP anyway for a WPF bugfix.

    Also:
    How does the fact that a binary of Rx is included with the Silverlight Toolkit affect things? Does that mean it can be considered as under that license? Can it be redistributed under those terms even if you're not actually using the toolkit? Surely a Microsoft lawyer must have already considered these questions before they were allowed to include it! ;-D
    • Edited by James Chaldecott Monday, November 23, 2009 10:32 PM Added query re Silverlight Toolkit
    Monday, November 23, 2009 10:18 PM
  • Can the folks on this thread please shoot me an email?
    Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:37 PM
    Owner
  • I cannot find your email anywhere, and I gave it a good two or three searches.

    I know you mentioned it in at least one video, either on functional programming or Rx, but I don't recall which.
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:36 AM
  • Does the new license work for you?
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:15 AM
    Owner
  • Works for me. :)

    I also wasn't able to find your email. If you (or others) do need to contact me, I can be reached at:
      rxforums.ourteddybear@xoxy.net

    Note that this is a "burn alias", so it will stop working after it starts attracting spam. My real email is on my blog. :)

            -Steve
    Programming blog: http://nitoprograms.blogspot.com/
      Including my TCP/IP .NET Sockets FAQ

    Microsoft Certified Professional Developer
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:38 PM
  • Thanks. Happy to hear that the new license terms work. 
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:20 PM
    Owner
  • I could not find the license terms anywhere? The first time I installed from the setup, I only got a "redist.txt", the second time I got all the XML, CHM and DLL files. Is the installer recursive?
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:26 PM
  • I think it does still have some bugs when upgrading.

    I did the same thing you did, and then uninstalled/installed, and that time the license was displayed.

            -Steve
    Programming blog: http://nitoprograms.blogspot.com/
      Including my TCP/IP .NET Sockets FAQ

    Microsoft Certified Professional Developer
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:53 PM
  • Ah. I see, the installer displays the license like an EULA. I'm so conditioned to click through those that I actually had to uninstall-reinstall several times before I saw it.
    Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:36 PM
  • Works for me! Thanks.
    Monday, December 21, 2009 10:19 AM