Notice (2018-05-24): bugzilla.xamarin.com is now in
Please join us on
Visual Studio Developer Community and in the
Mono organizations on
GitHub to continue tracking issues. Bugzilla will remain
available for reference in read-only mode. We will continue to work
on open Bugzilla bugs, copy them to the new locations
as needed for follow-up, and add the new items under Related
Our sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed on this bug
tracker over the years. Thanks also for your understanding as we
make these adjustments and improvements for the future.
Please create a new report on
GitHub or Developer Community with
your current version information, steps to reproduce, and relevant error
messages or log files if you are hitting an issue that looks similar to
this resolved bug and you do not yet see a matching new report.
I have tried all of the libraries that should be included in order to claim a .NET compliance, however the offline documentation I have acquired states that all of the database libraries in the Microsoft, Mono, and System branches all have the same notes; "To be added." I don't mind, because I'm going to use third-party connectors now, or the connectors the respective foundations have made themselves. I only bring this up because when I first tried Mono more than two years ago, I ran into the same issue and rage quit. I personally think if all of the open-source collaborators are going to state that "it's just as good as [whatever proprietary software],but free," we really can't overlook something as important as database transfers. People who are looking into Mono for the first time probably have the same reaction as I did two years ago. Just sayin'.
> the offline documentation I have acquired states that
> all of the database libraries in the Microsoft, Mono, and System branches all
> have the same notes; "To be added."
You're reading the raw XML Documentation files, and not using MonoDoc to view the documentation.
Within the XML files, "To be added" means "documentation for this section needs to be added" meaning "there are no useful docs."
It does NOT mean that the member doesn't exist. In fact, "To be added" wouldn't be present AT ALL if the member didn't exist; there would instead be nothing.
Furthermore, in the meantime Microsoft has since released their BCL documentation under a CC4 license , and this documentation has been imported, e.g. , which has only 14 instances of "To be added", which I'll happily ignore (e.g. they're in <remarks/> when <summary/> provides something).
As such, the database libraries DO exist, they DO have implementations, existing code will (mostly) just work. It's the documentation that was a problem, not the libraries.