Slashdot Mirror

Erm, on the web side, .NET has had some serious traction for years now. Many websites - intranets and publically-facing Internet sites - use ASP.NET. And for those who want to hate Microsoft, you can use this for ammunition - MySpace uses ASP.NET to power those pretty, accessible, user-friendly web pages.

If youre a .NET programmer, be sure to check out Atlas, Microsoft's AJAX framework.

Hm, for the first time ever, Google is playing catch-up with Microsoft. Microsoft has in fact released an AJAX toolkit a long time ago -- see ATLAS which is currently in community technology preview.

It's also free, so can anyone tell my Google's is better (and I don't want to hear arguments like "it's google's!")? Has anybody done a comparison?

.NET and AJAX really don't play nicely.

Have you seen ICallbackEventHandler in ASP.NET 2 and MS's own ATLAS toolkit?

.NET and AJAX really don't play nicely.

Have you seen ICallbackEventHandler in ASP.NET 2 and MS's own ATLAS toolkit?

"Some parts of the site like Browse are all .aspx extensions. As Jeff mentioned above, other parts of the site still have a .cfm extension, some of which is mapped to BlueDragon.Net -- which is an ASP.NET IHttpHandler that parses and can run ColdFusion syntax (but which is still running on ASP.NET). The backend cache servers are also all ASP.NET based."

"Hi everyone,
I work on the MySpace C# codebase...
To clarify, we wrote a custom configuration section that maps "fuseaction" URL parameters to ASPX extensions so that we'd maintain link integrity. The only place we aren't doing this is 'Browse' and certain other new features. Meanwhile, as Scott said the parts of the site that are running in ColdFusion are essentially doing so in ASP.NET 2.0 (via BlueDragon).
Thanks for the mention, Scott. It's been an exciting time putting this together and I can't imagine pulling this off on another platform.
Chris"

http://www.asp.net/webmatrix/Default.aspx?tabindex =0&tabid=1

It is the precursor to Web Developer

Runing IE7 Beta 2 Preview next to IE6.

I wonder if that means this guy will have to get recertified to get a MVP in Vista.

By providing a compatibility layer, their products may actually be compatible with other browsers.

Try actually reading about it before you spout some lame comment:

From http://atlas.asp.net/Default.aspx?tabid=47

However, "Atlas" isn't just for ASP.NET. You can take advantage of the rich client framework to easily build client-centric Web applications that integrate with any backend data provider.

Should be http://atlas.asp.net/ not http://atlas.asp.net./

Should be http://atlas.asp.net/ not http://atlas.asp.net./

As part of their release, they have a contest with some useless prizes. The interesting bit is that they are encouraging me to use open source licensing (see "Rules" section):

Anyone care to explain the term "mash-up" to me?

Here's the site:
http://atlas.asp.net/default.aspx?tabid=47

More likely, the summary is screwed up. It takes you here when you need to go here. I discussed this a bit more in my response to someone else.

This is one of those times that I am actually happy to be wrong. With all the nonsense surrounding AJAX as it is, all we needed was Microsoft throwing fuel on the fire.

More likely, the summary is screwed up. It takes you here when you need to go here. I discussed this a bit more in my response to someone else.

This is one of those times that I am actually happy to be wrong. With all the nonsense surrounding AJAX as it is, all we needed was Microsoft throwing fuel on the fire.

I was hoping someone would prove me wrong. I just couldn't believe that Microsoft would call it AJAX without it being AJAX! Your mention of "UpdatePanel" did the trick. I couldn't find it in the API anywhere.

Microsoft needs to be modded -5 bad site design. So if you go to atlas.asp.net (from the summary), does it take you to atlas? No. I was looking at the standard ASP controls that you can get to through the "Tutorials" link. No wonder I was confused! Atlas is actually located here.

The "real" atlas looks more interesting. Half the documentation is broken (e.g. all the "controls" point to the System.UI.Button docs), and I've already managed to find at least one IE-only example, but this is a bit more of what I had in mind.

The whole documentation is so rushed at the moment that it's hard to make a reasonable evaluation. But from what I can tell, Microsoftt is a lot closer, but not quite there yet. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. :-)

I was hoping someone would prove me wrong. I just couldn't believe that Microsoft would call it AJAX without it being AJAX! Your mention of "UpdatePanel" did the trick. I couldn't find it in the API anywhere.

Microsoft needs to be modded -5 bad site design. So if you go to atlas.asp.net (from the summary), does it take you to atlas? No. I was looking at the standard ASP controls that you can get to through the "Tutorials" link. No wonder I was confused! Atlas is actually located here.

The "real" atlas looks more interesting. Half the documentation is broken (e.g. all the "controls" point to the System.UI.Button docs), and I've already managed to find at least one IE-only example, but this is a bit more of what I had in mind.

The whole documentation is so rushed at the moment that it's hard to make a reasonable evaluation. But from what I can tell, Microsoftt is a lot closer, but not quite there yet. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. :-)

I was hoping someone would prove me wrong. I just couldn't believe that Microsoft would call it AJAX without it being AJAX! Your mention of "UpdatePanel" did the trick. I couldn't find it in the API anywhere.

Microsoft needs to be modded -5 bad site design. So if you go to atlas.asp.net (from the summary), does it take you to atlas? No. I was looking at the standard ASP controls that you can get to through the "Tutorials" link. No wonder I was confused! Atlas is actually located here.

The "real" atlas looks more interesting. Half the documentation is broken (e.g. all the "controls" point to the System.UI.Button docs), and I've already managed to find at least one IE-only example, but this is a bit more of what I had in mind.

The whole documentation is so rushed at the moment that it's hard to make a reasonable evaluation. But from what I can tell, Microsoftt is a lot closer, but not quite there yet. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. :-)

I'm not really a fan of MS, but I recognize they have a lot going for them. I'm a PHP developer so please don't assume I'm defending it because I like ASP. Really, I don't.

I think a bunch of people commenting read the press release and made their judgements without actually investigating how incredible the technology is. There was even the flamebait who posted something about cross browser compatibility. Well, watch the freaking demo video before you go trolling. You can find their first of many such demos here:

mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/uifx/asp_net_atlas.wmv

Maybe I find it amazing because I'm not that used to ASP development, but I'm thoroughly impressed how far MS has come in making developing for their platform easy. The demo I pasted above shows him making a pretty standard data grid. That part is cool, at best, to anybody familiar with ASP, and flat out amazing to anybody who's never seen ASP sites being developed. About 2/3 into the video he busts out the new Atlas code (so fast forward to there). It was maybe 3 additional ASP tags to implement full asynchronous functionality plus one more to setup a "updating..." dialog. Suddenly, a page that required refreshes on any action could add, edit, and *sort* paginated data without any refreshes.

And then he fires up the same code in Firefox and goes to show that it works exactly the same in both browsers. 3 ASP tags.

I'm sorry, but how can you blindly bash that? Sure there's equivalent technology in the works out there (such as rails), but it doesn't make this any less amazing. If there was a development platform as complete as MS's offering but based on Python/PHP, people would be pissing their pants. To ASP developers, this will make creating AJAX functionality unbelievably easy.

MS just scored major Hype 2.0 points today. But the hype isn't all unjustified. Again, go learn about this before you bash it.

Easy Programming Model ASP.NET makes building real world Web applications dramatically easier. ASP.NET server controls enable an HTML-like style of declarative programming that lets you build great pages with far less code than with classic ASP or technologies like PHP or JSP. Best of all, ASP.NET pages work in all browsers - including Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Internet Explorer... from the official website. Sounds kinda cool.

Operator Overloading In C#.

Operator Overloading in VB.NET Whidbey.

So I was wrong about function overloading, but I am right in saying that VB.Net does not support operator overloading until Whidbey.

Sorry, hit the damn Submit button instead of the Preview button.

The correct link is here: Atlas

Bill

Microsoft has a project called Atlas that does exactly that. Bill

You are quite correct, Google didn't invent any of the above and what is more to the point doesn't claim to have but do deserve some credit for Gmail and the rest.

According to this blog entry MS invented Ajax in 1998: "All of the pieces of AJAX .. have been available in Internet Explorer for some time, and Outlook Web Access .. since 1998"

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/

I think the actual reason is the restrictive cost of using Passport, and the effort to implement it:

http://weblogs.asp.net/ssmith/archive/2003/07/25/1 0517.aspx
"There are two fees for licensing .NET Passport: a periodic compliance testing fee of US$1,500 per URL and a yearly provisioning fee of US$10,000 per company."

This looks like asp.net Atlas might be worth investigating though.

http://logging.apache.org/log4net/ is your friend. it's ported from log4j. it works really well. the documentation is not 100% accurate, so Google is your friend too. we log everything to a single Oracle table, it's nice and easy to mine using SQL statements, it's easy to purge; logging medium is mostly a matter of personal preference. a good logging framework will let you add new loggers / change log levels without touching your app (without even restarting it). BTW, Microsoft's Enterprise Library Logging Block appears to be mostly crap...(http://weblogs.asp.net/lorenh/archive/2005 /02/18/376191.aspx).

There are many great resources available for you. Grab yourself a copy of Visual Web Developer Express: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/defa ult.aspx. This will allow you to mess around with the .NET framework and get a feel for the IDE - it is very similar to Visual Studio 2005. You will find lots of help on the forums at http://www.asp.net/ and this is a good starting point. The quickstart tutorials are great if you would like to wet your beak : http://www.asp.net/QUICKSTART/aspnet/Default.aspx.

There are many great resources available for you. Grab yourself a copy of Visual Web Developer Express: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/defa ult.aspx. This will allow you to mess around with the .NET framework and get a feel for the IDE - it is very similar to Visual Studio 2005. You will find lots of help on the forums at http://www.asp.net/ and this is a good starting point. The quickstart tutorials are great if you would like to wet your beak : http://www.asp.net/QUICKSTART/aspnet/Default.aspx.

a) Requires you to validate windows to install

And under Windows, you can easily run IE6 as a standalone application (just Google for details, they're everywhere). That still doesn't change the fact that in your desktop environment you will have one default HTML rendering widget - whether your desktop is KDE, Gnome, OSX or WinXP. Installing IE7 upgrades that widget under Windows.

Oh, heck, you don't even need to google it yourself. Here's one way of doing it without changing your standard renderer. You can use a similar technique to get a standalone IE6 image and then install IE7 traditionally to run both and get the new renderer as the default. See? Not too hard.

This page explains how you can run both on the same PC without needing a virtual machine. It works well for me.

http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/12/2 8/434132.aspx

This page explains how you can run both on the same PC without needing a virtual machine. It works.

http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/12/2 8/434132.aspx

Whether a bug in IE 7 or bad design http://www.asp.net/ is all hosed.

In addition to the other ides mentioned by the other posters, there's also Microsoft's WebMatrix, another free IDE for writing ASP.net code.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that market share is the cause of low security.

It's certainly not the cause of "low security", but it definitely makes Windows a target. This argument has been rehashed here and everywhere else a thousand times. The popularity of Windows makes it a target for more hackers. This says nothing about Microsoft's code quality, nor does it say anything about the quality of other OS's code bases. I'm just saying that it makes sense that the most used operating system would also be the most attacked. More attacks yield more results.

Shitty programmers with little or no Q/A, and a huge festering code base which is continually patched together with duck tape to keep it going

Why isn't this drivel modded as flamebait? Microsoft's coders are really any shittier than anybody else's coders, or at least I've seen no evidence of this. No Q/A? You have to be kidding me. If you have even a shallow knowledge of Microsoft's engineering practices you would know that their Q/A is probably the most intensive that any software company has on the planet, and it's getting more intensive every day.

Want an example? The ASP.NET team had 505,000 test scenarios for ASP.NET 2.0 that it had to pass 100% before they would lock it down as RTM.

along with a refusal to force 3rd party vendors to release software which runs properly (IE doesn't require local admin to run) causes security holes

Indeed, 3rd party software, and even Microsoft's own software (try developing an ASP.NET application with VS.NET 2k3 without admin privs), often fails to run correctly as non-admin. Microsoft has made a lot of changes to improve this, but 3rd party support is still lagging. Why? Because Windows is used by basically everybody, and if a patch or new version of Windows suddenly broke 75% of the applications out there nobody would upgrade.

This problem is an extremely difficult one to solve, and a lot of it has to do with Microsoft's failure to produce specs and guidelines from the start that let ISVs know what they needed to do to make sure software ran as non-admin. Microsoft's solutions in Vista are a huge step in the right direction.

Windows doesn't have *bad* security, Windows has no security.

Baloney. The Windows security model is a solid one. Aside from the applications that don't like installing or running as non-admin (mostly ASP.NET development, really), I run Windows as non-admin 100% of the time. The security model in Windows is actually more extensive than the security model in most flavors of Unix, including Linux. (At least out of the box.) Regardless, Windows gets a bad rap for security not because of design of Windows is bad, but because there have been lots of high profile, highly damaging exploits for Windows over the years. With a few glaring exceptions, such as the WMF exploit, Microsoft has always had patches available for weeks if not months before the bastards out there released their worms or viruses.

Transparency between versions? How does that cause poor security?

As I explained earlier, Microsoft can't just break everybody's applications, even if they're insecure. That's not the way it works when you have 90% of the computer using world running your software.

Not only are there more men, but most of them are named Steve.

try the Time Tracker starter kit. Not saying it's necessarily useful, but I started off in .net with this, so. :-D

In addition to other posters comments about OWA, MS has also just released their new "Atlas" platform which is basically bringing AJAX tech to the "average programmer". See http://atlas.asp.net/. It's still in the alpha stages, but some people are doing some cool stuff with it already. One of the MS guys has put up a site that demos some of the interesting things you can do: http://apps.nikhilk.net/VirtualPlaces/ (still not working in Firefox). Sure it's just another AJAX'y mapping site, but it seems MS is committed to this project.

They are also coming around in the standards-compliance area (Visual Studio 2005 is leaps and bounds ahead of their previous product) and the ASP.NET team seems to be committed to adhering to web standards.

Digg The Slashdot Killer

Digg Might Just Bury Slashdot

Slashdot, Digg.com, and the True Meaning of Design

My Slashdot Replacement

Goodbye, Slashdot, Hello Digg

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_detail s?&range=1y&size= large&compare_sites=slashdot.org&y=t&url=digg.com

How Digg Uncovers The News

Why Slashdot Will Die

See what others are saying...

Digg is actually better. Slashdot is old and ugly. Its content is decided by editors, the layout looks like it was made in windows95's heyday and its a dinosaur. Digg on the other hand is new and "growing", they use a flashier, better looking layout, yet the site is still simpler then Slashdot. The content is decided by the submitters and you can get that content via audio and video podcasts.

I never could stand slashdot. The layout and just overall feel of that site was/is bad.

I don't like slashdot's layout. It's ugly and cluttered. The colors make me wanna puke.

Slashdot users agree that Digg.com's entries are a lot more current that the ones posted at Slashdot.

99% of slashdot users have self-diagnosed themselves as suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. Most slashdot users consider themselves "smart" when in fact they are simply of average intelligence, but have more free time and a higher sense of ego. This can be seen in the forums where spelling and usage errors are prevalent in condescending, arrogant rants, identified by containing the phrase "people are stupid" at some point in the post.

I prefer Digg for my tech news and I've found some really nice sites that way.

I prefer Digg. I used to check /. but I didn't like it as much

I like Digg better anyway, much more and more interesting news.

What I can't stand, even less that the site and the proseltyzing editors, are Slashdot's users- overweight, effeminate cubicle shit. At least I don't have to wear a goatee and suck linux dick to participate on Digg I cant stand Slashdot, I will only Read it when its linked from somewhere else

Learn More

Digg The Slashdot Killer

Digg Might Just Bury Slashdot

Slashdot, Digg.com, and the True Meaning of Design

My Slashdot Replacement

Goodbye, Slashdot, Hello Digg

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_detail s?&range=1y&size= large&compare_sites=slashdot.org&y=t&url=digg.com

How Digg Uncovers The News

Why Slashdot Will Die

See what others are saying...

Digg is actually better. Slashdot is old and ugly. Its content is decided by editors, the layout looks like it was made in windows95's heyday and its a dinosaur. Digg on the other hand is new and "growing", they use a flashier, better looking layout, yet the site is still simpler then Slashdot. The content is decided by the submitters and you can get that content via audio and video podcasts.

I never could stand slashdot. The layout and just overall feel of that site was/is bad.

I don't like slashdot's layout. It's ugly and cluttered. The colors make me wanna puke.

Slashdot users agree that Digg.com's entries are a lot more current that the ones posted at Slashdot.

99% of slashdot users have self-diagnosed themselves as suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. Most slashdot users consider themselves "smart" when in fact they are simply of average intelligence, but have more free time and a higher sense of ego. This can be seen in the forums where spelling and usage errors are prevalent in condescending, arrogant rants, identified by containing the phrase "people are stupid" at some point in the post.

I prefer Digg for my tech news and I've found some really nice sites that way.

I prefer Digg. I used to check /. but I didn't like it as much

I like Digg better anyway, much more and more interesting news.

I cant stand Slashdot, I will only Read it when its linked from somewhere else

Learn More

Well, if you don't have access to a professional level tool like Visual Studio or Macromedia's Dreamweaver, you could always use the freebie Microsoft ASP.NET WebMatrix. It's a sweet, little (1.3 MB), no-frills tool although you won't move the world with it. It can even do database driven pages from Access (blech!) or SQL Server. Other databases are possible although you'd have to hand tweak the code and forget the visual designer.

Obviously you don't leave your machines up for a long time.

http://weblogs.asp.net/chuckop/archive/2004/04/05/ 107912.aspx

Microsoft has a project called 'Atlas' that has a set of prebuilt controls and javascript files that you can use for your projects. It can be found at asp.net. The nice thing about this project is you can define an Atlas (it's just AJAX really) control the same way you define a typical asp control ( vs. ) and then link in the pre-defined .js files. I have been reading about AJAX for a while now on Slashdot (my employeer has been using it for quite a while now and I didn't even know it) but hadn't tried it out. Atlas is so simple that I had my first page converted in a matter of minutes. An earlier submitter pointed out that not all pages need to be converted or built using AJAX but the customer is demanding it. This is an interesting topic, and I have considered this myself. I have found that almost every page in the types of websites that I create don't need this technology. Most of them are your typical form where you just insert data and update a database. If you don't need a high level of interactivity, AJAX might not be the best option.

The .NET alternative, which comes as a part of .NET 2.0/Visual Studio 2005, is Atlas.

Here's an overview.

You should look up Microsoft Atlas. And I'm guessing you're not a web developer?

1> DotNetNuke is free.
2> There are free platforms (including the text editor and Web Matrix: www.asp.net/webmatrix/default. aspx?tabIndex=4&tabId=46
) that can be used to modify this software.
3> If you don't want to rely on the few microsoft DLL's used for their membership provider you can use whichever one you your prefer. I was sent one (free) the other day by a kind user that will allow me to interface with Novell's Membership directory.
4> It is possible to run DotNetNuke on Linux.
You can see it here:http://dev.mainsoft.com/
5> Much of what can be done with DotNetNuke doesn't even require programming. It can be installed for you by many Web Space providers, and there are a huge number of free (open & closed source) modules provided by the very active community. Here is an excellent thread listing just some of these sources:
http://forums.asp.net/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=2&Po stID=1089210#1089210

As I said, DNN is free and open. If you think otherwise you've got your eyes closed. By the way, Linux users are more than welcome to grab the source for this software and port it, change it, extend it in any way they like. It is that open. The more people who take advantage of this software and add to its capabilities, the better.

Nope, it's AJAX alright. The Atlas Client Script Framework is an extensible, object-oriented 100% JavaScript client framework that allows you to easily build AJAX-style browser applications with rich UI and connectivity to web services. With Atlas, you can write web applications that use a lot of DHTML, Javascript, and XMLHTTP, without having to be an expert in any of these technologies.