Moving to .NET Framework

views:

182

answers:

Moving to .NET Framework

We have an application that is being moved to .NET One part of the application will be deployed using ClickOnce, SXS (Registration-free COM to host Active-X controls which may be ported later). This part is not as big a deal, as the environment is controlled. This will be a mostly "consulted" environment.

Another part is a mostly web-based (IE specific) application. This part involves some VBScript, JavaScript, and just a couple of Active-X controls.
This part really worries me. Especially because it's supposed to be usable by home users. It's already a mess, but it's going to get a whole lot worse. And, we are on a time constraint. They want to move this to .NET and utilize ClickOnce. And, some brute hackery involving an IE embedded container with security switched off. Probably even SXS to host the controls in the IE container. They tell me it will be fine, we can just give the home users CDs, and put them through the .NET install (target is 2.0).

Am I worrying over nothing here? Can I really trust ClickOnce/.NET for deployment, even in the future? Is it reasonable to put the home users through the .NET install process?

+3 A:

This sounds like a recipe for disaster, unless it's been done before, and you're using a framework:

an IE embedded container with security switched off. Probably even SXS to host the controls in the IE container.

This sounds like a real mess, and a bad way to combine managed and unmanaged code.

Also, why in the world would you not use .NET 3.5 SP1? If this is an application just now being moved to .NET, then why start in the past?

John Saunders 2009-07-04 00:04:27

On the contary... why use .Net 3.5 unless you specifically need the extra features? Pretty much everyone has .Net 2.0 but not many people have .Net 3.5 yet.

Kragen 2009-07-04 00:18:59

Didn't "unknown" say he's including the installer for .NET 2.0? Why not 3.5 SP1? Also, .NET 3.5 SP1 includes .NET 2.0 SP1 and SP2. Also, if he ships 3.5 SP1 now, he'll be free to use .NET 3.5 SP1 features without any consideration of having to ship .NET again. Finally, it's going to ship with Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2, very soon, so why not gain the experience here in the early days of the .NET version of the product? In general, don't start with a handicap if you can help it. It's not like I'm suggesting shipping .NET 4.0 beta!

John Saunders 2009-07-04 00:40:01

3.5 SP1 is .NET 2.0 SP2 plus extra assemblies. There is no reason not to use it.

John Saunders 2009-07-04 04:09:19

The team is not willing to use VS2008 because it is too new.

2009-07-04 11:47:39

Too new? How long do you need to wait? It's been out for over a year. It's at SP1! More to the point, the two have nothing to do with each other, as I'm talking about _installing_ .NET 3.5 SP1, not _using_ it. The idea is that it will be there when you need it, and you won't have another install to do later on.

John Saunders 2009-07-04 12:35:23

I agree with you. It's a good suggestion, and I'll do my best to encourage it.Unfortunately, there's not much I can say to change this decision.And besides, it doesn't really deal with my immediate concerns.Also, perhaps you can answer this. Will targetting 3.5 make it harder to port code to Mono? It may make things easier on my side if portions of the code can be easily ported to Mono.

2009-07-05 05:53:47

I don't know anything about Mono; sorry.

John Saunders 2009-07-05 11:49:57

Thank you for the response. Unfortunately I will be accepting the other answer, because it is more (practical) relevant to my concerns. Although, I do appreciate that someone else shares my sentiments and I'm not just some raving purist lunatic.

2009-07-05 20:41:37

+1 A:

Am I worrying over nothing here?

No, I think your concerns are well founded.

Can I really trust ClickOnce/.NET for deployment, even in the future?

Yes, I think so. There's no doubt the world is going toward Rich Internet Applications rather than smart clients, but I don't see any indication that ClickOnce is going away. WPF is delivered over ClickOnce and that's MS flagship presentation framework going forward. It will be around for quite some time.

Is it reasonable to put the home users through the .NET install process?

In my opinion yes. It's very simple, it can be done through Windows Update and as part of the installation of your application (you don't have to ship a CD) and you will find that many of the customers already have it installed.

JP Alioto 2009-07-04 00:48:20

Yeah, honestly using .net 2.0 the amount of users who do not have it installed is honestly very tiny on a windows based pc. Almost anyone who uses xp or later has at least .net 2.0 due to windows update. Pretty much any vista or windows 7 user will have it and I am not sure but it might have been included with windows xp service pack 2 or 3.

2009-07-04 01:42:50

@chris: I'm wondering why your added paragraph is relevant to this question. You may want to consider reverting that edit.

John Saunders 2009-07-04 01:59:38

I do have to agree with you on the using the 3.5 framework. He seems to be worried about future updates by his last line so using .net 3.5 allows more room for upgrades later without having to reship out a newer version of .net later.

2009-07-04 02:11:01

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Moving to .NET Framework

related questions