> From: Tony G > > IE has had issues for years with stability and > > standards. But technical or political aversion (or > > attraction) to .NET needs to be based on .NET and not > > on applications that don't even use it.
From: Brutzman, Bill > 1. To me, it is a given that Microsoft encourages > users to run the .net web apps on IE. That's not accurate. ASP.NET itself is browser/device independent - when the browser connects to the server, the appropriate code/controls are returned for the specific client. The tables that determine the code that gets pushed out are open for anyone to maintain, though I know of very few instances where this required, desirable, or even discussed. Further, .NET is not limited to ASP.NET. Therefore, as I said, you can use it as the communications pipe from Adobe Flex, PHP and other completely non-.NET clients. I'm sorry to turn people's notions of .NET upside down, but someone has to because obviously Microsoft hasn't done a great job of explaining .NET to a large number of people who still believe many of the myths. As just a couple examples: - I read recently a statement that .NET is expensive. That's not correct - it's completely free for development and use. - People tell me they don't use web services because they don't like IIS. .NET web services are not dependent on IIS or any other web server. > 2. Much as I like Microsoft, the MS "equivalent" of > JEE, BizTalk server, is rather expensive. This isn't related to .NET or IDEs, so while it may be true (no clue) it's not a valid point for this discussion. > WCF (Windows Communications Foundation) has a lot of > beautiful features yet it has some major scaling > limitations. IBM WebSphere has a lot of advantages in > this space. That's sort of apples and oranges too. Yes, WCF has scalability issues and I won't argue for or against it. But as a minimal definition, WCF is a free component of the .NET Framework which can allows inter-process communications with a few lines of code, and WebSphere is a large commercial offering with a large set of implementation details. With reference back to my original statement a the top of this posting, we can't properly discuss solutions when there is so much mis-information in circulation. I don't care particularly whether someone likes or doesn't like .NET, Java, PHP, or the MV DBMS model. But when we assert whether some technology is good or bad, or right or wrong for some task, we really need to make sure it's for verifiable and context-specific reasons. You won't get a comment from me, for example if you say WCF is inappropriate for internet usage as an inter-process communications mechanism - that's what it was designed for, but your opinion and experience about how it does the job are your own. You will get a comment from me if you say cars aren't as good as unicycles because unicycles consume too much electricity. Yeah, I know, that makes no sense for many reasons because we all understand cars and unicycles and how they're intended for different purposes. When we're on the same page with .NET we can have the same discussions. When we're not on the same page about the facts, it doesn't matter what anyone says because pre-conceptions and mis-information preclude any point as being compelling in any direction. Sorry for the digression. T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
