Bob,

Can you copy local for the DLLS? This will make life a lot easier as you don't need anything in web.config. If the DLLs live in the BIN directory you can simply load by name.

I use factory methods for this sort of thing and then isolate each of the DLL calls into a separate assembly. This is for example, how my app loads data access providers dynamically and only as needed.

However, in that case there's the advantage of a common front end interface which you may not have.

Actually if you're building assemblies for ASP.NET I would stay away from anything strongly named. That way you can just do Assembly.Load() at runtime create your type or interface point and start firing away.

+++ Rick ---


>Ok,
>
>In our ASP.Net app we have classes we wrote which use the Crystal 9 managed code to print reports with RAS 9. For the next release we want to support RAS9 and RAS10.
>
>Problem, the classes reference the Version 9 DLL's.
>
>So, my thought is to create two projects/assemblies. One that uses version 9.0 and one that uses 10.0. This way, they API's in our classes are the same so our app can use either one an not care which version of Crystal is being used.
>
>So, how do I do this. Two thoughts:
>
>1. Create the two projects to create the same strongly named assemblies with the version differering to match the Crystal version. So, I will have Framework.Reporting.dll 9.0.0.0 and Framework.Reporting.dll 10.0.0.0. Each project would properly reference the correct version of Crystals code.
>
>2. Create the two projects with different names, Framework.Reporting.9.dll and Framework.Reporting.10.dll with the same assembly version 2.1 to match our other framework assemblies.
>
>Which is better, 1 or 2? Can I create two dlls that have the same fully qualified class names in them? How do I set the config of my ASP.Net ap to correctly reference the right version?
>
>If some one can help, or point me to an article on doing something like this it would be much appreciated.
>
>BOb