Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?

This seems to be a recurring theme in all the responses:

"...browsers/platforms with proper care by the developer..." there is
proper care and then there is jumping thru hoops, you want to avoid the hoop
jumping. But beyond that, no matter how much care you put into the ASP.NET
app it has several flaws:

1. it relies on a browser that can be modified by other malicious web sites
2. takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app
3. slow and inefficient even if you do the work to cache everything just
right, the rendering will aways be slower
4. there more things you can do in a WindowsForm interface that you either
can't do in a web page or requires consider work and effort to do it

If the sandbox is that tight, they probably can't do much with the PC
regardless. And communicating with a Web Service is not required the
developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL servers,
web services, or even local services that might be on that PC.

I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the web
pages for mostly static work -- just a way to get to the clickonce link.
Ultimately the folks paying the development bill want the fastest solution
possible with the features they need. ASP.NET is not that solution.

Rob.


"Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uC2DfOC$FHA.3804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework
> installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
>
> Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
> with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can make
> winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation of the
> .NET framework installed.
>
> And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be to
> secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be able to
> make a web service call back to the web server for example. Now the user
> has to go configure security on their machine - what average user is going
> to know how to do that?
>
> Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a kiosk.
> Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them being open
> enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
>
> Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web development
> for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way off.
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23gqpHyB$FHA.140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> VS 2005 I have:
>> ClickOnce deployment
>> User's that hate and or don't want to use an IE Client (don't blame
>> them)
>>
>> I don't see how ASPX web pages are going to survive? With .NET 2.0 and
>> clickonce deployment my app is 427KB (even with modem dialup speed it
>> doesn't take long to download) -- the user gets a very friendly secure
>> WindowsForm app (most of them don't even notice they're not under IE
>> anymore) that performs considerably faster than any ASP.NET app.
>>
>> The road map as I see it:
>> IE client -- back to static just clickonce links that open up
>> WindowsForms apps
>> Vista -- .NET 2.0 built in (no need to download)
>> WebServices -- called from WindowsForms apps (keeps it secure and
>> firewall friendly)
>> WindowsForms are a HELL of a lot more secure (no IE attached activex
>> components, no data miners, click monitors, etc. etc.)
>>
>> The way I see it -- user interaction is going to move back to
>> WindowsForms since the IE client by definition is just NOT user friendly,
>> NOT programmer friendly, and has a ton of other issues surrounding it in
>> terms of security and performance and flexibility.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, web development will still exist (web services and
>> basic static content), but I believe anyone doing serious business
>> applications using the web will migrate to this approach -- it really is
>> a win win.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
    ... How does "clickonce" solve the problem up version updates? ... takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app ... > developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL ... using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: The Difference is Obvious!
    ... shouldn't have to spend the hours that I did trying to make your app ... aren't some nice features in WinForms. ... So, as a developer, I'd like ... with every WinForms app I download and ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
    ... it will be tight enough that you can't call SQL ... takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app ... And communicating with a Web Service is not required the ... > I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: The curse of constant fields
    ... production branch, EAR construction etc) for a reasonably important J2EE app I am pretty fanatic about sanitizing everything prior to an official build. ... our environment it would be unrealistic. ... Because a lot of time can be wasted if a tester reports that an error is still there, and then it's a question of is the error still there because the build is flawed, or because the developer who "fixed" it only fixed it for a different use case or in his own development environment. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Server did not recognize the value of HTTP Header SOAPAction
    ... I created a new test winforms project in 1.1. ... The test app works OK, ... I understand you've developed an ASP.NET webservice ... application is sending an unexpected SoapAction header to the service. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservices)
Loading