[Mono-dev] System.Security vs Mono.Security

APS dev.malst at apsystems.it
Thu Jan 15 09:01:08 EST 2009

First of all thanks for the quick and complete answer.
I'm trying to understand what part of my MS Framework-based can work 
in Mono and what not, expecially for PKCS libraries used for signing 
documents, and what classes I can use in future development to avoid 
breaking compatibility.
Unfortunately links inside http://www.mono-project.com/Class_Status 
relative to FX 1.1 and FX 2.0 points to missing pages.
I had a look to 
just to have an idea of what missing links contains and it's not 
clear to me what 100% means. It means that all classes and method 
exists, but they can return NotImplemented Exceptions or it means 
that all methods are fully functional? If I simply search for a class 
inside http://www.go-mono.com/docs/ and I find it I can assume that 
is implemented?
Maybe using MoMA will solve my doubt on current compatibility but it 
would be useful to find out what I can use and what not for future 

At 14.12 15/01/2009, Sebastien Pouliot wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 13:27 +0100, APS wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm writing because I've not clear the difference between the two
> > namespace System.Security and Mono.Security.
>Just like the rest of the Mono class libraries.
>- System.Security* are classes that are API compatible with MS
>- Mono.Security* are classes that are provided by Mono as extraneous
>features (generally because Mono itself needed the feature and the FX
>did not expose or provide them).
> > Reading this page http://www.mono-project.com/Cryptography I noticed
> > for example that System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates is not
> > yet implemented in Mono 1.1.x
>This namespace exists inside 3 different assemblies. The only part that
>is NOT implemented resides inside the System.Security.dll assembly and
>is related to two UI (user interface) classes.
> > but there is Mono.Security.X509 that seems to implement what is
> > missing in System.Security
>Yes. Mono.Security was more complete than FX 1.x API. FX 2.0 has a more
>elaborate API, in some respect it provides more than Mono.Security, in
>other it provides less. Selection between them really depends on what
>you want to do.
> > That doc is relative to mono 1.1 maybe is outdates?
>It's a bit old but not much out of date (not many recent changes were
>made in them).
> > Where I can find the implementation status on Mono 2.x?

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list