.NET Standard FAQ
Something missing? File an issue.
What are good resources to learn about .NET Standard?
- API Documentation
- Conceptual Documentation
- Video Series on .NET Standard
- Introducing .NET Standard blog post
- Channel 9: Whiteboarding .NET Standard
- Podcast Episode on .NET Rocks!
- Q&A video
What is .NET Standard?
.NET Standard is a specification that represents a set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement. This unifies the .NET platforms and prevents future fragmentation. Think of .NET Standard as POSIX for .NET.
Having a standard solves the code sharing problem for .NET developers by bringing all the APIs that you expect and love across the environments that you need: desktop applications, mobile apps & games, and cloud services.
For more details, take a look at Introducing .NET Standard blog post.
The blog post has 15 pages. Why so complicated?
The general idea of .NET Standard is pretty simple indeed. The blog post is a bit longer because it also provides more context in related areas, specifically how we use .NET Standard in tooling, which additions we're making in .NET Standard 2.0, how we model platform specific APIs, and what .NET Standard means for .NET Core.
I still don't get it. Can you provide an analogy that makes sense for a dev?
Take a look at this document which explains the versioning in terms of interfaces and classes.
How is .NET Standard different from .NET Core?
Here is the difference:
- .NET Standard is a specification that covers which APIs a .NET platform has to implement.
- .NET Core is a concrete .NET platform and implements the .NET Standard.
What APIs are part of .NET Standard and which platforms support it?
We have a version document that points you to the platform support matrix as well as which APIs are available in a given .NET Standard version.
As a library author, which version of .NET Standard should I target?
When choosing a .NET Standard version you should consider this trade-off:
- The higher the version, the more APIs are available to you.
- The lower the version, the more platforms you can run on.
So generally speaking, you should target the lowest version you get away with. The version document will help inform your decision.
How does .NET Standard versioning work?
Think of the .NET Standard versions as concentric circles: higher versions incorporate all APIs from previous versions.
From a project that targets .NET Standard version x you'll be able to reference other libraries and NuGet packages that reference .NET Standard from 1.0 up to, and including, version X. For example, when you target .NET Standard 1.6, you'll be able to use packages that are targeting any version from .NET Standard 1.0 up to 1.6. However, you'll not be able to use a package that is targeting a higher version, for example, .NET Standard 2.0.
From a project that is targeting a specific .NET platform, the .NET Standard versions you can reference depends on which version of .NET Standard the platform is implementing.
Starting with .NET Standard 2.0 we also enable referencing binaries compiled for .NET Framework through a compat shim.
How does .NET Standard work with Portable Class Libraries (PCLs)?
Certain PCL profiles are mapped to .NET Standard versions. The mapping can be found in our documentation.
For profiles that have a mapping, these two library types will be able to reference each other.
What about the breaking change between .NET Standard 1.x and 2.0?
Based on community feedback, we decided not to make .NET Standard 2.0 be a breaking change from 1.x. Instead, .NET Standard 2.0 is a strict superset of .NET Standard 1.6. The plan for handling .NET Framework 4.6.1 and .NET Standard 2.0 is outlined in the spec.
If there is no breaking change, why call it .NET Standard 2.0?
We think .NET Standard 2.0 is such a large change that bumping the major version is justified:
- We more than doubled the API surface
- We added a compat shim that allows referencing existing binaries, even if they weren't built against .NET Standard or Portable Class Libraries
Is the API set of a .NET Standard version fixed?
Yes. A specific version of .NET Standard remains frozen once shipped. New APIs will first become available in specific .NET platforms, such as .NET Core. If we believe the new APIs should be made available everywhere, we'll create a new .NET Standard version.
What's the difference between targeting, implementing and supporting?
- A library targets a specific framework. .NET Standard is a synthetic framework, which represents a standardized set of APIs across all .NET platforms. A library can also target a specific .NET platform, in which case it gets access to platform-specific APIs. For example, when targeting Xamarin.iOS you also get access to iOS APIs.
- A .NET platform implements a specific .NET Standard version.
- A .NET platform supports all .NET Standard versions that are equal to or lower than the version it implements. For instance, if a .NET platform implements .NET Standard 1.5, it supports 1.0 - 1.5. If it implements .NET Standard 2.0, it supports 1.0 - 2.0.
Is .NET Standard specific to C#?
There is nothing language specific about .NET Standard. From a language view
point, the only tie-in to .NET Standard are the language-specific runtime APIs
FSharp.Core etc.) and
the project templates that allow you to target .NET Standard.
We don't plan to add any language-specific runtime APIs to .NET Standard. The expectation is that they sit on top of .NET Standard and are referenced as needed, for example, from the project template.
Who decides what is in .NET Standard?
The current versions of .NET Standard (1.x - 2.0) were mostly computed:
- The 1.x version range was effectively constrained by what was available in .NET Core.
- For 2.0, we've started with the intersection of .NET Framework and Xamarin, deliberately excluding .NET Core to make sure the resulting set isn't held back by it. We decided we'll simply add the delta to .NET Core.
So for the most part, the decision maker was Microsoft, although as explained above, with very little degrees of freedom as the problem was mostly a result of what was feasible at the time.
Moving forward, we want to open up .NET Standard to be driven by the .NET Standard review board. The board is comprised of implementers of .NET.
The idea being that the standard doesn't drive new APIs: rather, the work of the standard body is to decide which of the APIs available on some .NET platforms should be available on all .NET platform and thus be added to the standard. In other words, the innovation happens in the context of a particular .NET platform and standardization follows afterwards.
AppDomain part of .NET Standard?
AppDomain type is part of .NET Standard. Not all platforms will support
the creation of new app domains, for example, .NET Core will not, so the method
AppDomain.CreateDomain while being available in .NET Standard might throw
The primary reason we expose this type in .NET Standard is because the usage is fairly high and typically not associated with creating new app domains but for interacting with the current app domain, such as registering an unhandled exception handler or asking for the application's base directory.
MarshalByRefObject (remoting) part of .NET Standard?
We don't plan to add remoting support to .NET Standard. However, in order to
avoid potential breaking changes, we'll have the
MarshalByRefObject type as
many other types derive from it but we will not expose any remoting-specific
members on it, such as
System.Data part of .NET Standard?
.NET Standard will contain the abstractions (
IDbConnection etc.) as well as the
general ADO.NET facilities (
DataTable etc.) APIs.
We don't plan on adding any specific providers to .NET Standard as their applicability varies (for example, it's a highly unlikely scenario to use the SQL Server client from an iOS device, but it would make sense to use a provider that can store data on the device, such as SQLite). The expectation is that those sit on top of .NET Standard or remain platform-specific.
Why is JSON.NET not part of .NET Standard?
Today, one of the most popular libraries for dealing with JSON is JSON.NET. But by adding it to the .NET Standard we'd do the community a disservice. What matters is that the JSON support is widely available. And James, the author of JSON.NET, does a great job making sure that JSON.NET is available everywhere. His ability to do this successfully is a function of how hard it is for him to make changes. The best way to do this is by creating a library that targets .NET Standard because it can be updated independently from the standard itself and everyone immediately benefits.
Of course, this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't provide some built-in JSON support. We've talked with James about this in the past and I believe there is a lot of opportunity for us to collaborate with him on an even more performant way to provide JSON support in .NET. However, we're very interested in doing this with him rather than just building "another" JSON.NET. We want a strong ecosystem for .NET, but this can only happen if we embrace libraries based on merit, rather than by who wrote it. That's what open source is all about.
Why is XYZ not part of .NET Standard?
As explained in the JSON.NET example above, there is a trade-off between adding components to .NET Standard and having components that are on top of .NET Standard and can be updated independently.
Check out the .NET Standard inclusion principles to see how we approach this.
Why do you include APIs that don't work everywhere?
We generally don't include APIs in .NET Standard that don't work everywhere, and instead provide them as libraries that sit above .NET Standard.
But if you think about it: we can't make type members (for example, methods,
properties, etc.) additive. The only thing you can make additive are types, as
two different types can live in separate assemblies but we don't have a
mechanism to split a single type across two different assemblies. In those
cases, we leave the members on the type and let platforms that cannot
meaningfully implement them throw
Moving forward, we try to avoid creating types where only parts of it work everywhere. But as always, there will be cases where we couldn't predict the future and are forced to throw.
Will there be tooling to highlight APIs that don't work everywhere?
Our current focus is on providing APIs either as part of .NET Standard or as
independent packages that sit on top of .NET Standard. In some cases, certain
APIs will not be supported everywhere and throw
While that isn't ideal, it's much simpler than the alternatives, which are:
#if, also called cross-compiling
- Write complicated reflection code, also called runtime light-up
if statement with a platform check is much easier to express. Of
course, there are limits to this. Exceptions are only acceptable for corner
cases to avoid the complexities above. We will generally not expose large set of
APIs that aren't supported.
In the future, my hope is that we can provide tooling to help you with this, by, for example, providing Roslyn analyzers that can give you squiggles in the IDE.
Will Unity implement .NET Standard?
Yes. We're working with Unity to make sure this is a smooth experience. In general, since Unity is a fork of Mono it will mostly get .NET Standard support for free. The work to support Unity is mostly in tooling.
I saw your video and I like your watch. What is it?
It's a Garmin Forerunner 920, a triathlon watch. Sadly, my watch is fitter than I am :-)
When will Visual Studio support creating .NET Standard libraries?
Visual Studio 2017 supports creation of .NET Standard Libraries, including building NuGet packages.
When will Xamarin Studio support creating .NET Standard libraries?
The upcoming version of Xamarin Studio will support this.
What's the difference between .NET Standard Library and .NET Platform Standard?
These were terms we used in earlier discussions. We only have one concept today called .NET Standard.
Can you explain the assemblies and type forwarding in more detail?
Should I reference the meta package or should I reference individual packages?
In the past, we've given developers the recommendation to not reference the meta
NETStandard.Library) from NuGet packages but instead reference
individual packages, like
rationale was that we thought of the meta package as a shorthand for a bunch of
packages that were the actual atomic building blocks of the .NET platform. The
assumption was: we might end up creating another .NET platform that only
supports some of these atomic blocks but not all of them. There were also
concerns regarding how our tooling deals with large package graphs.
Moving forward, we'll simplify this:
.NET Standard is an atomic building block. In other words, new platforms aren't allowed to subset .NET Standard -- they have to implement all of it.
We're moving away from using packages to describe our platforms, including .NET Standard.
This means, you'll not have to reference any NuGet packages for .NET Standard anymore. You expressed your dependency with the lib folder, which is exactly how it has worked for all other .NET platforms, in particular .NET Framework.
However, right now our tooling will still burn in the reference to
NETStandard.Library. There is no harm in that either, it will just become
redundant moving forward.