Tom,
In .NET, one needs to think less of a module, and more of a class. Each
class has it's own responsibilities and data. E.g. a Circle class. That
said, modules in VB may not correspond one-to-one with the classes you will
design in VB.NET (or any .NET language).
Namespace on the other hand is a collection of classes that have similar
functions. E.g. Shapes namespace. This namespace itself could be included in
a broader namespace, etc.
So, separate your functions and form a class, and then place them in a
namespace. The namespace can span multiple assemblies (DLL, exe, etc), but I
find it helpful when they are in one. It does not matter how many assemblies
you create -- creating more makes easy distribution, but difficult
maintenance.
Dug up a simple article on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/26/oscars.razzies.reut/index.html
Hope that helps.
--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com [quoted text, click to view] "Tom Edelbrok" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:iPrVd.25139$TB.23544@edtnps84...
> I'm upgrading from VB6 to VS.Net Pro 2003, and am trying to plan a way of
> using NAMESPACE's.
>
> Under VB6 we had a variety of global procedures stored in a series of
> modules, as well as in classes. These were 'included' into a number of
> independant VB 6.0 projects. It seems to me that under VB.net we have two
> choices for implementing the new NAMESPACE idea:
>
> a) Either we continue to have a series of modules, and place namespace's
in
> them. These modules are part of each individual VB.Net project.
>
> b) Or, we take our common modules (utility procedures and functions) and
> place them into DLL's (Assemblies now?) with their own namespaces. Each
> project that needs the common modules can either import the namespace or
> else reference utilties explicity with a namespace prefix.
>
>
> My knowledge of VB.net as you can see is limited, however maybe someone
can
> give me some pointers. We don't want to implement something and then have
to
> spend enormous amounts of time undoing it later.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom
>
>