Slashdot Mirror


Mono Ships ASP.NET server

Miguel de Icaza writes "We have just released the new version of Mono the new version includes a working version of ASP.NET. The release includes a sample web server that "hosts" the ASP.NET runtime (it can be hosted anywhere, for instance in Apache, with mod_haydn). The web features of ASP.NET would not be very useful without the support of a backing database. The new version of Mono includes database providers for Oracle, MS SQL, Sybase, ODBC, OleDB, Gnome Data Access, SqLite, MySQL and of course, Postgres. The C# compiler is now 37% faster due to some nice optimizations on the JIT engine and in our class libraries. You can use it to develop GUI applications using Gtk#. Screenshots for mPhoto and the GUI debugger (which can debug both JITed apps and native applications). "

8 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No DB2? by miguel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The volume of database providers in this release is the work of very few but very active hackers: Brian, Dan, Rodrigo, Tim and Ville. It is amazing the amount of code that these hackers pulled in the last two months.

    It is easy to know when the System.Data hackers are working, your inbox gets hammered with patches from the mono-patches list.

    You can help us support DB2, but you will have to get your hands dirty and start coding like the crazy hackers that brought all these providers (and Reggie has agreed to contribute his optimized provider as well).

  2. Re:ASP.NET or PHP by miguel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, having ASP.NET is very convenient to move applications and components from Windows and deploy them on Linux or Unix systems. So I think that this is a plus on its own.

    In terms of choices, I have to admit that I personally am more of an old school strongly-typed kind of person, and I like programming more with a language that I understand like C#. There is nothing wrong with PHP or Perl, but I feel a bit insecure with them. Like when you have to order water in a restaurant, and you do not want to look cheap, so you end up asking for `bottled water' even when you are trying to not spend a lot of money [1].

    Mono and .NET offer a very interesting crossroads: the possibility of sharing components and existing classes independently of the language that was used to create it.

    I strongly believe that scripting languages are great for quickly building web solutions, and I would love to see more work between the PHP (and other scripting communities) and Mono. We are certainly interested in helping out.

    For instance, the Mono runtime is easily embeddable, it could be used in existing systems with ease: for example, allow any language but use the PHP API to write web pages is one option (check the link for a few more samples and the tutorials), or hosting any programming language on Apache (as its done with the Apache/Mono module mod_haydn.

    Miguel.

    [1] Although as you grow older, you become more cynical, and you just tell the waiter `Get me a glass of the cheapest form of water you have'.

  3. Re:Yay Mono team by phorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good thing a:

    If we can get a better "forms" implementation on 'nix (windows-like without windows bugs), that would be awesome

    Secondly, but verrry important to those who do webhosting, clients requesting ASP pages would be able to run on 'nix servers, no longer requiring special windows dedicated hosts. For those who prefer 'nix servers, and many hosts do, running a windows server in the bunch is a pain in the butt!

    If this actually pulls through, I will be amoung many who are very, very impressed.

  4. Tell that to Unisys - Gif patents by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unisys were well aware of the widespread use of LZW GIF image compression in many vendors software, so it's better to use PNG.

  5. mono on windows95 by mcbevin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    one useful feature mono will hopefully provide is the ability to run .net programs on older _windows_ systems.

    thats right :) - microsoft doesn't support .net on windows 95 (presumably as part of their overall strategy to force upgrades by making their old os versions obselete).

    having written a windows forms application (the decision to use windows forms based on the fact that it really is one thousand times nicer than win32/mfc to create gui applications with), i was a bit shocked to find out that my application won't run under windows 95 at all, and that for other old microsoft OSes a TWENTY megabyte download is required to support it! (a bit of a jump from the one or two megabytes for the visual basic dlls).

    and one further note - about 'pure' .net applications (ones that don't call the win32 api and are thus potentially more portable) - the inability to do any multimedia stuff (even a simple beep) without resorting to win32 calls, makes it pretty much impossible for any reasonably large application :).

  6. Re:/home/linuxuser$ mint myapp.exe by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting
    To avoid emulating Win32 ourselves, we chose to use WineLib as the foundation for implementing Windows.Forms. Later to match the native look of the linux desktop we will provide the Wine team with patches to use the Gtk rendering engine on Unix and the Cocoa rendering engine on MacOS.

    Hmmm. Considering the amount of effort that was required to make WineLib work correctly on Linux/PPC, are you seriously planning the totally enormous investment of resources it'd take to port Wine to MacOS as well? Considering the primary motivations seem to be to improve GNOME development tools and increase Windows compatability, is the MacOS port just a throwaway comment or are there serious plans?

    Only porting the core windowing and widget library would probably cut down the amount of work involved, but for instance Wine is heavily dependanct upon X11 currently....

  7. Re:That's nice by jonabbey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're talking about the The Middleware Company's "shootout" between their "optimized" PetStore implementation and their .NET version.

    Laying aside that Sun never put the PetStore demo forward as a benchmark, The Middleware Company did a lot to optimize the .NET version that they did not do for the Java version. The fact that Microsoft was paying for the comparison may have had something to do with this.

    Read Rickard Öberg's analysis of the comparison to learn all of the ways in which the comparison was flawed. To name just one, The Middleware Company announced that it took fewer lines of code in the .NET version to do the same thing, but they left methods in their Java version that were never even called anywhere in the code.

    In addition, the .NET version did aggressive caching in memory, in such a way that it would be impossible to scale the code across more than one server, while the J2EE version was implemented using BMP, which robs an application server of the ability to do any caching whatsoever.

    It goes on and on and on. Read the analysis for yourself.

  8. Re:bleh. by Allthefuckinggoodnam · · Score: 4, Interesting
    can you offer any REAL advantages of PHP over ASP.NET? I've worked only a little bit with the two of them, and PHP I haven't used much since version 3, and a very brief stint helping a client port a PHP4 site over to JSP. Most of the development I've done has been with JSP/Servlet/Struts, and from my perspective I can't imagine going back to using PHP, although I could see using ASP.NET for enterprise development. To be clear, I am a J2EE developer who is trying to look at ASP.NET as objectively as possible. Here is what I see as advantages that ASP.NET has over something like PHP:

    For instance:
    • I can swap out my serverside scripting language from C# to VB to JScript++ to theoretically any language that supports the CLR.
    • I can use really nifty tag libraries for such features as automatic pagination.
    • I can trap events in a framework that abstracts out many of the intricacies of HTTP.
    • My pages will be compiled and the compiled code will be reused (granted, not a full compile, but byte code interpretation is still faster than text interpretation).
    • I can get binary reuse of components written for .NET, which is a concept that seems to be completely irrelevant in PHP.
    • With code behinds I have a very simple mechanism for separating business or integration code from presenation logic.
    • I get to use full featured object oriented programming languages that are strongly typed and offer all of the advantages of such languages (IO libraries, interface/class inheritance, db libraries, xml processing, ldap abstraction layers, SOAP processing, EAI libraries, connection pooling, multithreading, remote object lookup (COM and .NET remoting, hell, even COM/EJB bridges), etc.).
    • The tool support for .NET is another very compelling reason to look at ASP.NET.
    • In memory session support

    • Again, I'm trying to look at reasons why I would prefer PHP to ASP.NET, and it seems like there are reasons that you are convinced are compelling, so I'd be interested in hearing them.