Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:10:07 -0800
At some point a port has to be open if the end user wants contact with the
outside world. If the user is VPN then no issues at all.
I think my statement is about the future, not Today -- I'm more interested
in the future as today has got user acceptance problems which I assume you
don't believe -- however the statistic are available on the web if you want
to see why people aren't using IE (of any flavor) and jumping on the web.
Something needs to be done and keep a concept/technology like and IE client
as the only way to do it is not good for anyone. The future will be a
hybrid of the two IMHO.
It is feasible today and being used today -- I'm not sure why you think
people are OK with having a IE Client but NOT ok with have .NET framework?
Dialup download might be a little painful, but not unreasonable at 22 MB --
certainly no more unreasonable than SP2 or the numerous other software
patches (on any platform).
I agree in 2 years HTML will still be around so will ASP.NET, but those
technologies will become redundant and as those spending the money on
development start to see this other approach that is better, costs less,
then they will start to migrate also. HTML will be around for a long time,
but it is clearly a very worky and dependant technology.
Put a check mark in your calendar and wait, watch, and see.
"Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23darqqD$FHA.356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ASP.NET doesn't rely on anything more then any other web technology does.
>
> As far as the sandbox, it will be tight enough that you can't call SQL
> server, web service, or anything local. I gave web services as an
> example - but it won't be able to do plenty of other things. That is just
> how it will be, to prevent the user from running some program that is then
> going to run some malicious code. So, you are not going to gain anything
> here, as you are either going to have to have a user that is sophisticated
> enough to set security policy or is an admin - both of which are highly
> unlikely for most users.
>
> This is if the user is going to have the framework installed to begin.
> This is a big if. So what if Vista comes with it. That is meaningless.
> What about everyone on xp, 2000, 98 (yes, that happens), linux, mac, etc?
> That is a lot of other people who dont' have the framework by default, and
> in some cases can't, unless somehow it gets implemented on other
> platforms. I have not heard anything about this being a definite - and
> even if it happens, again, people have to actually install it on their
> machine!
>
> I think what you are saying sounds all nice in concept. But in practice,
> it is just not feasible in many scenarios at this point.
>
> I don't understand the point of this post, really? Is it to convince us of
> something? I mean, you can say that everyone on this newsgroup is wrong
> and do what you feel is best, and that's that. Do you feel a need to
> convert us all?
>
> How about in 2 years, we revisit this issue. My guess is, HTML will still
> be around, ASP.NET will still be around. WinForms will be making headway
> in very specific narrow types of situations where they are a good fit -
> but they certainly will not replace the web.
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:u22mrjD$FHA.2708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Kevin Spencer
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- References:
- Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Rob R. Ainscough
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Marina
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Rob R. Ainscough
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Marina
- Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Next by Date: Re: Why I prefer inline code to code-behind
- Previous by thread: Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Next by thread: Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
