Is It Time For A .NET Newsgroup

[Anonymous]

I am trying to focus solely on the .NET API and not ARX applications. I find it confusing with all the .NET API posts intermingled with ARX posts. To add more confusion, I have noticed people referring to programs written using the .NET API as ARX applications.

[Anonymous]

Yes I am finding it extremely annoying aswell. Anyone who agrees can tell Autodesk what they think here http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=3710077.

I have suggested a .NET API group with the possibility of subgroups for specific languages. Hopefully if enough people agree and speak up Autodesk will take notice.

Regards - Nathan

[Anonymous]

My vote would be "no" (in order): 1. There's really not that much traffic in this newsgroup to begin with, maybe a dozen-or-so messages/day on average (I'm sure someone has actual numbers). 2. Effectively using the .NET API (currently) requires a good understanding of much of the existing C++ ObjectARX API. 3. During this “transition period” from ObjectARX to ARX.NET, there can be a need to use both—custom objects being the most obvious example. 4. The line between ObjectARX and ARX.NET will blur considerably with C++/CLI in Visual Studio 2005. 5. More difficult to tout the benefits of .NET to ObjectARX developers. :-) Dan "Tim Nortel" wrote in message news:42548372_1@newsprd01... >I am trying to focus solely on the .NET API and not ARX applications. I >find it confusing with all the .NET API posts intermingled with ARX posts. >To add more confusion, I have noticed people referring to programs written >using the .NET API as ARX applications. > > >

[Anonymous]

1. There's really not that much traffic in this newsgroup to begin with, maybe a dozen-or-so messages/day on average (I'm sure someone has actual numbers).

Reply: Yes but it would build over time. It also misses the point that they are two seperate API's and that Object Arx is wrtten in C++ and most people deciding to use the .NET API will probably use C# or VB.

2. Effectively using the .NET API (currently) requires a good understanding of much of the existing C++ ObjectARX API.

Reply: You may see a similarity but it does not mean you can't dive straight into using the .NET API without an understanding of the ObjectARX API.

3. During this “transition period” from ObjectARX to ARX.NET, there can be a need to use both—custom objects being the most obvious example.

Reply: This is the point of the original post. There is no such thing as ARX.NET. ObjectARX apllications are written in C++ .NET using the ObjectARX API. .NET Applications\Assemblies can be wtritten in any .NET language using the .NET API.

Regards - Nathan

[Anonymous]

> My vote would be "no" (in order) you paying for the server space?/// ;-) Yes! we need a .net site...Please.. "J. Daniel Smith" wrote in message news:425547ad$1_3@newsprd01... > My vote would be "no" (in order): > > 1. There's really not that much traffic in this newsgroup to begin > with, maybe a dozen-or-so messages/day on average (I'm sure someone has > actual numbers). > > 2. Effectively using the .NET API (currently) requires a good > understanding of much of the existing C++ ObjectARX API. > > 3. During this "transition period" from ObjectARX to ARX.NET, there > can be a need to use both-custom objects being the most obvious example. > > 4. The line between ObjectARX and ARX.NET will blur considerably with > C++/CLI in Visual Studio 2005. > > 5. More difficult to tout the benefits of .NET to ObjectARX > developers. :-) > > > > Dan > > > > "Tim Nortel" wrote in message > news:42548372_1@newsprd01... >>I am trying to focus solely on the .NET API and not ARX applications. I >>find it confusing with all the .NET API posts intermingled with ARX posts. >>To add more confusion, I have noticed people referring to programs written >>using the .NET API as ARX applications. >> >> >> > >

[Anonymous]

Paul Richardson wrote: > Yes! we need a .net site...Please.. When asking for autodesk.civil3d.customization I was told the trend is towards less groups, not more. So I would say its unlikely. Terry

[Anonymous]

there are some we can up...;) Maybe they'll negotiate... "Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message news:4256b7c8$1_1@newsprd01... > Paul Richardson wrote: > >> Yes! we need a .net site...Please.. > > When asking for autodesk.civil3d.customization I was told the trend is > towards less groups, not more. So I would say its unlikely. > > Terry

[Anonymous]

Terry,


Dot Net group seems a bit different from
a Civil3d group. Their API is heading toward Dot
NET and I assume they want us to be ready went they
are. Or not..;-)


Paul
"Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message
news:4809099@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Paul Richardson wrote:
>
>> Yes! we need a .net site...Please..
>
> When asking for autodesk.civil3d.customization I was told the trend is
> towards less groups, not more. So I would say its unlikely.
>
> Terry
>

[Anonymous]

One of the major features Autodesk is promoting for Map3D is the new .NET API so it seems pretty important to them. Maybe important enough to supply it's own group.

Regards - Nathan

[Anonymous]

Yes...I wasn't saying no group for all of Map3D 😉
wrote in message news:4810450@discussion.autodesk.com...
> One of the major features Autodesk is promoting for Map3D is the new .NET
> API so it seems pretty important to them. Maybe important enough to supply
> it's own group.
>
> Regards - Nathan

[Anonymous]

>>>There's really not that much traffic in this newsgroup to begin with<<<

Don't forget to tell them about us that lurk in the shadows.

We don't get counted because we don't know enough yet to participate. 😞

Bill

[Anonymous]

I am sure it's high time!!!

[Anonymous]

It has been about a month since I made the request to Autodesk and I didn't receive a reply. It would be nice to know what their thoughts on this subject are.

Regards - Nathan

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, I already sent a mail to Autodesk, but as you can expect, they do not answer.

[Anonymous]

Another good forum is : http://www.cadvault.com/forums/forum132.html

[Anonymous]

Well Autodesk have listened and delivered our wish.

Regards - Nathan