×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

101 comments

Source? (2, Informative)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734106)

The word "source" doesn't even appear on the frontpage of that, nor on the "learn more" page. The Download page says the toolkit is shared-source but none of the other stuff mentions the source. Docs don't mention source at all.
Looking at the terms of use page, this is hardly a free license, and it's certainly not opensource unless they've really managed to bury it within the site somewhere.

Re:Source? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734174)

No-one said it was open source, but it's interesting that people assume "source available" means "open source".

Re:Source? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735122)

No-one said it was open source, but it's interesting that people assume "source available" means "open source".
 
Also interesting is that you assumed his statement of fact that it's not open source implies an expectation that it was. :)
 

Re:Source? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17746350)

Also interesting is that you assumed his statment of fact that 'that people' meant 'that all people', thereby implicating the parent of his post.

Re:Source? (0, Flamebait)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735780)

The term "completely free" was used, to my mind it's not completely free unless it's open source and released under a suitable license.

Re:Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17736052)

The concept that you think for something to be free it has to be released under an open source license is amazingly closed minded of you. how free can it be if you require to to be a certain way.

Re:Source? (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736112)

well ok, released with a public domain dedication is just as good...

Re:Source? (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736274)

So it has to be GPL or PD dedicated? What's wrong with the license [microsoft.com] it's actually released under?

Re:Source? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17744544)

That actually does look free.

Re:Source? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17746470)

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Doesn't that mean that they can release this, you make a change, then they take your changed version and make a change that violates one of your patents, at which point you can't sue them over it?

Re:Source? (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17746592)

What it says is the concept of patent retaliation. Suppose Microsoft has some patents which cover some of the code in this software (they probably do). You are using the software under this license. Without the license, you'd have no legal right to use the software (from both a copyright and a patent standpoint). If you decide that some of this software violates one of your patents and try to sue Microsoft for it, this line of the license automatically revokes your patent license, meaning you can't use the software anymore.

So, for the hypothetical situation that you mentioned... You make what kind of change? A change that implements one of your patents? If that's the case, you can't sue them because another part of the license says that in order to contribute to this project you have to give a patent license to anyone who uses the software.. for that patent that you implemented. So you must be talking about a change that isn't implementing one of your patents.. ok. So now, in your hypothetical situation, Microsoft makes a change to the software which violates one of your patents. You want to sue them, fine, you do that. This statement says that any patent licenses you've received from the contributor you're suing (in this case Microsoft) are now void. Which, essentially means, you can't use the software anymore, but if you don't care about that, you can still try to sue Microsoft. Good luck with that.

Re:Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17737050)

how free can it be if you require to to be a certain way.
WTF? (And no, I'm not complaining about the typo.)

Re:Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17736674)

"The term "completely free" was used, to my mind it's not completely free unless it's open source and released under a suitable license."

Now you're just splitting hairs. They can call their release anything they please & 99% of people who would go to that page anyway would take their "Completely Free" statement as intended and not in some fashion which would require a detailed analysis & telepathic link to RMS to decipher.

Re:Source? (5, Informative)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736150)

The "source available" (notice how carefully I worded that to avoid your assumption that it should be "open source" using your/RMS's definition) is mentioned on Scott Guthrie's blog [asp.net]

In addition to shipping the source code for the ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit controls, we are also releasing all of the source code for the fully supported ASP.NET AJAX 1.0 release. Specifically:

We are releasing the client-side ASP.NET AJAX JavaScript library (which we also call the "Microsoft AJAX Library") under the Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) [microsoft.com]. This grants developers the right to freely customize/modify the library, as well as to redistribute the derivative versions of the JavaScript library for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

To help with debugging and development, we are also releasing all of the source code for the server-side ASP.NET AJAX 1.0 implementation (including the UpdatePanel, UpdateProgress, ScriptManager, and Network Serialization code) under the Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) [microsoft.com].

Being granted "the right to freely customize/modify the library, as well as to redistribute the derivative versions of the JavaScript library for both commercial and non-commercial purposes" is pretty "open", despite not being released under the GPL. Heck it's almost a BSD license. It's certainly the least restrictive of the MS source licenses, they just haven't submitted it to the OSI for approval (and really, can you blame them?). It was written with the OSD in mind.

Wow, that's amazing... (2, Funny)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734112)

... how innovative of them!

Re:Wow, that's amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17734552)

... how innovative of them!
Don't pout... while Microsoft is busy innovating AJAX frameworks, why don't you get busy innovating a desktop windowing environment with a "Start" menu, a taskbar along the bottom, and a clock in the lower-right. Yeah, nobody has ever seen that before.

Or you could go choke on your own cock if you have one. Your choice.

Re:Wow, that's amazing... (1)

erikus (891552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735174)

... how innovative of them!

Actually it sounds like a lot like the Google Web Toolkit [slashdot.org], an ajax framework that works with java and also had its source released.

Yeah, but... (2, Informative)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734118)

the support center phone numbers all start in 976, and they charge $14.99 per minute.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736058)

the support center phone numbers all start in 976, and they charge $14.99 per minute.

sneak in to MS campus, and call them from there

Sucks for The Others (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734132)

This sucks for all those companies whose core business is making an AJAX framework.

Re:Sucks for The Others (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734906)

This sucks for all those companies whose core business is making an AJAX framework.

Maybe for those businesses whose core is making an AJAX framework for ASP.NET (are there any such businesses out there?). Those focused on other languages/platforms (PHP, Ruby on Rails, etc) should have no problem competing with this since their target audience probably isn't going to switch from Ruby to C#.

Besides, it's not like this just came out of the blue. The Atlas framework (the in-progress codename for this v1.0 release) has been available for nearly two years in various different preview forms (Microsoft likes to release "Community Technical Previews" (CTPs) rather than "Betas" of bits like this). If your core business is building an AJAX framework for ASP.NET and you didn't see this coming, you have bigger problems than Microsoft trying to enter your market.

Re:Sucks for The Others (1)

germ!nation (764234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735776)

1) see a post notifying /. of a Microsoft product 2) find a way to weave an underlying issue to do with MS being overly competitive somehow even though they are the 97th company to release such a product 3) ?? 4) there is no step 4

Re:Sucks for The Others (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735998)

Because of the way ASP.NET works, its a bit dumb to make an Ajax toolkit. You're better off making a control toolkit, as it can be better targeted for your customers. And its what people have been doing. Look at ComponentArt, Telerik, and others. Their offerings, while sharing some things with ASP.NET Ajax, actualy embrace and extend it, so their offerings are still worth the money...

Re:Sucks for The Others (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737692)

God, just the mention of the Telerik tools is enough to make me...well, I love Telerik. Talk about making it so damned easy.

I met these guys at DevConnections last year. Good guys, and their product is great. I love the "outlook" stuff. Especially when the customer's management see the end results. If you can make web-based apps indistiguishable from the desktop apps that PHB's use, BONUS.

Re:Sucks for The Others (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17744576)

Yeah seriously. I used to work for a consulting firm, and, well, UI sells. As much as the google "keep in simple" approaches work like a charm... making fancy interactive GUIs make customers throw money at you. When we started using Telerik's controls is when we started having to refuse contracts for lack of time to do them all! It was sweeet.

Unfortunately, now I work for in house enterprise apps for a fortune 500 company. And they don't care about that. Can't even use ASP.NET Ajax because of architecture decisions, so I have to do it the hard way. Had to spend all day on some javascript to make a user friendly date picker without messing up the architecture. That was hell >.

Re:Sucks for The Others (1)

darrenkopp (981266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17738668)

Maybe for people that make frameowrks, but people that are making asp.net controls that are enabled by ajax (Telerik [telerik.com] and ComponentOne [componentone.com] for example), people are already getting going with asp.net ajax. People who before were making their own ajax code and such are now adapting their contorls for the new asp.net ajax. This is NOT going to woo people over dojo and things like that. it's just going to enable asp.net developers to have a ajax framework that works like the other .net code they are used to writing.

I had been following this.. (3, Informative)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734272)

It is a great tool in my opinion and easy to integrate with existing ASP.Net applications.

But What I really like about Microsoft Ajax for .Net 2.0 was the Ajax Control Toolkit (separately available w/ source)

http://www.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.as px?ProjectName=AtlasControlToolkit [codeplex.com]

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

metsu (601943) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735638)

things like this make me sad about the status of mod_aspdotnet. :(

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

boethius78 (1002975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736558)

I agree. Say what you will about Microsoft, but I can't remember ever seeing a web calendar as sweet as this one... http://ajax.asp.net/ajaxtoolkit/Calendar/Calendar. aspx [asp.net] Easy navigation by month, year or decade (click on "January, 2007"), and it's a pleasure to use the control. I'm not a fanboy, I just like to see things done well. The control works smoothly in FireFox, but I can't speak for Opera &c.

Re:I had been following this.. (3, Interesting)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737192)

Yeah, that's a really good use of AJAX isn't it. Sheesh.

This is why AJAX gets a bad name. I used Atlas before it evolved into this. And that was the problem there too. Look! It's ALL AJAX! All the time! The amount of overhead with this stuff is insane. They're just using the AJAX hook to sell people on a bunch of bloated controls. That is a fact. When you need AJAX, it's VERY easy to do. There is absolutely NO need whatsoever for a 3rd party toolset or components to do this, and enabling every last control you use with AJAX is just stupid.

This isn't AJAX, it's an abomination.

Oh and btw, if that's the nicest calendar you've seen out there...here's a hint: There are literally THOUSANDS of calendar controls out there. And that is certainly nothing new. (And again, absolutely NOTHING that needed AJAX to implement whatsoever.)

Re:I had been following this.. (2, Informative)

Kamidari (866694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17738866)

If you look at the controls, though, a lot of them aren't really AJAX, calendar control included. It's not making calls to a webservice via XMLHTTPRequest or any such thing - just extending a textbox or button via client-side scripting.

So, I wouldn't call it an abomination, just a misuse of the term AJAX, which I've noticed isn't all that uncommon out there. Companies have to jump on the AJAX bandwagon, after all. ;)

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17739078)

While that is true, it's still indicative of the massive bloat these controls add.

If you implement a simple form in ASP.NET, use a couple of these controls, have post back and view state turned on....the amount of code and size of bloat in bandwidth is simply INSANE.

By example, I used an atlas calendar control a while back, very similar to the example shown in the article. When I went and implemented my own, it was probably about 1/10th the amount of code that ended up on the client, much cleaner on the back end, and much much snappier.

Now try with a control that actually DOES do AJAX. It just gets worse.

Re:I had been following this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17742418)

So let's see it. I'd offer you a job on the spot if you weren't blowing hot air up all our asses, which you are.

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17742574)

Riiight, because I really need a job from some anonymous coward that chooses to insult me as a first order of business.

I'll take the Karma hit for this no problem, unlike yourself. Fuck you clown.

For anyone else following this, I've got nothing to prove whatsoever. This is what I do for a living, take it as you may, or leave it. Really matters not to me.

Re:I had been following this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17742664)

That's fine. Though I am curious as to why you post comments here attempting to prove the inferiority of a particular product when you have nothing to prove. Congratulations on ostensibly fulfilling your admitted intentions, for you have proven nothing at all to me.

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743136)

I'm not trying to prove anything. How could I _prove_ anything about this? This is simply a discussion forum. I merely provide anecdotal evidence of what I've experienced with these technologies. I do not give a flying fuck whether I've 'proved' anything to you. Why would I? I don't give a shit whether you use this or not.

Though I strongly suspect a couple of things. First, pretty sure you're not a web developer. If you are, and you actually understand AJAX and .NET, you wouldn't be arguing with me. Second, you're really starting to come off as a MS rep or something. You seem particularly concerned about what I've said...but more concerned with trying to ensure no one thinks I've 'proven' anything with my statements.

Where's your vested interest? Why do you give a shit whether I think AJAX.NET sucks or not? I've already made up my mind and know what techs I'm using. So what gives?

And of course, what kind of credit can we give to someone that carries this conversation out as you have while the entire time insisting on remaining an anonymous coward?

Anyways, this is a complete waste of time for me, so good luck with that ehh?

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17747494)

I understand your point, however there's always the other side of the coin. Ajax used well enough, or in the case of "Atlas", client side, reusable components (as ASP.NET Ajax is, ironically enough, only 1/10th ajax in its functionality, its much more than that), allow you to scale better: more stuff done on the client = less on the server.

Bandwidth, I don't know: the core libs of ASP.NET Ajax are quite small. If you can really do all the -useful- stuff in 1/10th of the code without sacreficing -anything-, including security, functionalities, and ::gasps:: development time (time = money), I'm happy for you, and I wish everyone I got to work with were that good. Unfortunately, for many companies, its not realistic.

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17750812)

That's part of the problem though. AJAX.NET does offload a lot to the client, but not really the right things. All that's offloaded is fancy DHTML client side functionality for individual widgets.

Try something as simple as having two drop that affect each other. Data can be predetermined. Good luck getting them to NOT round trip to the server.

As with any toolkit, there are trade offs. And I will certainly concede that there are good uses for AJAX.NET. Any VB coder can now write 'AJAX' sites. Coders that won't touch the client directly can now write dynamic sites without having to touch javascript, css, DOM etc...they can write very familiar code just like everything else in .NET. However, what you trade off is control.

If you require a low volume site in short order with some fancy client features, go for it.
If you're building a high volume site with some critical functionality, you're probably going to want to role your own.

Oh, and BTW, just so you know AJAX.NET really doesn't bring anything to the table on the security front at all. This is a good thing. Developers really need to be aware of what's required on a security front themselves, not a good thing to offload to your IDE.

Now, all of this does point to why I actually really really like working with ASP.NET. Thankfully, I'm not FORCED to do anything in any particular way. Any time the standard controls and widgets are getting in the way or just not able to perform well enough, you can easily get down and dirty and role your own.

Re:I had been following this.. (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17746646)

I can't remember ever seeing a web calendar as sweet as this one...
it's a pleasure to use the control.
I'm sorry but I don't think that's a very good JS calendar, jscalendar [dynarch.com] is much better and it works everywhere I've tested it.

Too many layers! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17734436)

On a client-side Windows system, we have the JavaScript for the AJAX functionality running in the browser. The browser itself, depending on which one is being used, may be running on top of .NET 2.0. .NET is then running on top of the userland Windows subsystems. The userland subsystems are running on top of the NT kernel. The NT kernel is then running on hardware.

The server side isn't much better. We have an ASP.NET application running on .NET. .NET is running on the userland Windows subsystems. These subsystems are running on the NT kernel. The NT kernel is then running on hardware.

We keep seeing layer upon layer being added. While this may make things easier for developers, the resulting application stacks end up consuming much in the way of system resources, both for clients and servers. I find we're also losing reliability as we go higher in the stack. AJAX applications and ASP.NET are highly prone to failure. Web browsers are known to crash easily enough. At least the NT kernel is becoming somewhat stable these days.

Re:Too many layers! (1)

aquaepulse (990849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734758)

The browser itself, depending on which one is being used, may be running on top of .NET 2.0
What browser would that be? IE, or FF, or Opera?

.NET is then running on top of the userland Windows subsystems
Everything runs on top of that. But thats only via calls to the Windows API. If you were calling the Windows API then you would have to do that anyway.

The userland subsystems are running on top of the NT kernel. The NT kernel is then running on hardware.
We should all code in assembly. That's most efficient.

I find we're also losing reliability as we go higher in the stack.
That's why I always implement my own quicksort. To stay away from the layers.

Re:Too many layers! (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735200)

The server side isn't much better. We have an ASP.NET application running on .NET. .NET is running on the userland Windows subsystems. These subsystems are running on the NT kernel. The NT kernel is then running on hardware.
It gets worse. That hardware is running on electricity. Electricity is running often on fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels are running on dinosaurs. Those dinosaurs run on other dinosaurs and vegetation. The vegetation runs on nutrients and photosynthesis. Photosynthesis runs on solar energy. Solar energy is powered by the Sun.

And I'm not sure what Sun had to do with the .NET framework.
 

Re:Too many layers! (1)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735420)

Touché! Everything runs on SUN!

Re:Too many layers! (2, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737852)

That's Al Gore's next target. He's afraid the Earth, and most notably, the U.S. is using too much Sun. Apparently, we are using so much Sun that it is causing it to overheat. This is causing not only the Earth to heat up, but Mars as well.

"If we continue to use the Sun as much as we are, it's going to burn out. Where are we going to be then?" Gore further went on to say, "If there is life on Mars, and I'm convinced of the possiblity, we may be killing it. The eco-system of Mars is very delicate and life there is used to existing in the conditions that have existed for eons. Our over use of the Sun may just kill our neigbors. Katrina was nothing compared to what might happen to Mars. Now, let's move onto the superstorms we are causing on Jupiter..."

Scientists around the world were quick to support Gore's statements, "While we are still working on his claims that we are overusing the Sun, and we can't be sure that aliens aren't manipulating its coronasphere, we recommend a complete halt to Sun usage, just to be safe. After all, what would it hurt?" The Scientists around the world are funded by the non-partisan "Special Interest Lobby Who Believe America and Capitalism Are Ruining the World and Besides We Just Want Everybody to Be Communist" (SILWBACARWBWJWEBC) and are involved with the equally non-partisan "Study to Prove We Are Using Too Much Sun and America is to Blame Because They Use More Than Anyone and Even Save It for Daylight Savings Time" (SPWAUTMSABBTUMTAESIDST).

Re:Too many layers! (1)

Ambidisastrous (964023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17745388)

Photosynthesis runs on solar energy. Solar energy is powered by the Sun.

And I'm not sure what Sun had to do with the .NET framework.

Sun instigated it all by creating Java. See? It all ties back in.

Re:Too many layers! (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736174)

On a client-side Windows system, we have the JavaScript for the AJAX functionality running in the browser. The browser itself, depending on which one is being used, may be running on top of .NET 2.0.

What weird browser are you running that sits on top of .net 2.0? Firefox doesn't. IE doesn't. Would you care to backup your claim that "AJAX applications and ASP.NET are highly prone to failure"? They're probably just as prone to failure as a PHP, CGI or JSP application and the most probable cause will be the code you developed, not the framework they run under.

And damned if those C++ programs I write aren't sitting on top of a C++ runtime. Damnit. The layers! Won't someone think of the children?

Re:Too many layers! (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737404)

And damned if those C++ programs I write aren't sitting on top of a C++ runtime.

I don't know what kind of funny C++ system you use, but mine compiles down to a native machine code binary that does not require any kind of "runtime" such as a bytecode interpreter, or any other kind of massive framework.

CGI's can be native, static binaries and when they are, there is very little that can go wrong compared to PHP and JSP, where the interpreter can be changed / upgraded out from under your application. In fact, I have some static binaries that were compiled on an ancient slackware system 10 years ago that still work fine on a new machine with the latest Ubuntu release.

On that note, while some people do use C or C++ to write web applications, it's not common anymore outside of embedded web appliances and such (think management interfaces on SOHO routers...) There are also suid applications that really should be static binaries if you care about security at all.

Re:Too many layers! (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17740038)

You still use CGI? Get out of the early 1990s man! My god! How primitive can you get? Sucky sucky lame! Even with FastCGI it's still a shitty hack.

Re:Too many layers! (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17754226)

I don't know what kind of funny C++ system you use, but mine compiles down to a native machine code binary that does not require any kind of "runtime"

He's talking about the C/C++ runtime library, not a virtual machine. It doesn't matter whether you dynamically or statically link it in, it's there and you are using a "layer".

CGI's can be native, static binaries and when they are, there is very little that can go wrong compared to PHP and JSP, where the interpreter can be changed / upgraded out from under your application.

What on earth are you talking about? PHP and JSP run on the server. You control what interpreter is running on it. It doesn't magically swap itself out.

Re:Too many layers! (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736820)

It also gives the developers less of an idea what's really going on. And it gives them less control. If the only way the developers know how to use AJAX is with the MS toolkit, then they're going to have a hard time when it doesn't support something they want to do. Same thing with the way the forms designer works. Sure it makes it really easy that you can drag and drop controls and make a web application really fast, but when you want to do something that it doesn't support, then you're screwed, and if you ever want to switch platforms, then good luck. Tying your development too much to one solution tends to really limit the things you can do.

Re:Too many layers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763740)

You are so right.

We were all better off when we built everything from rocks and sticks, instead of using these damn automated computers which we don't control everything that happens.

Re:Too many layers! (2, Insightful)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737988)

AJAX applications and ASP.NET are highly prone to failure.

Can't say much about ajax, but care to support your second statement? Who coded them? Were they coded by a real developer, or by somebody who doesn't know how to use the language?

Any language is prone to failure if the programmer doesn't know how to code properly.

Re:Too many layers! (1)

merlin_jim (302773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17740318)

We have an ASP.NET application running on .NET. .NET is running on the userland Windows subsystems. These subsystems are running on the NT kernel. The NT kernel is then running on hardware.

Just a nit or two but

a. Calling it the Windows NT kernel is a bit of a misnomer - All the vestiges of the NT kernel were removed for the XP / 2003 rewrite...

b. the actual process stack looks like this:

world wide web worker process (w3wp.exe) -> HttpApplication object -> HttpModule object -> .NET runtime -> ISAPI interface -> IIS6 -> windows API -> usermode to kernelmode marshal -> kernel stuff

Unless you're running IIS6 in native kernel mode in which case it looks like this

w3wp.exe -> HttpApplication -> IIS6 -> usermode to kernelmode marhsal -> HttpKernel -> .NET runtime -> kernel stuff

The big advantage of that is of course if the request can be handled entirely by the kernel mode HTTP server (such as a request coming straight out of .NET cache, or one with invalid authentication credentials) then it never hits usermode at all... also vastly simplifies the process model...

I saw a comparison of data caching between the two modes once - it was a 64K page made by concatentating a 1K string and outputting it - the IIS5-style user mode HttpModule handled 40-60 requests per second IIRC... very respectable for running IIS on a laptop with a load client and powerpoint and a half dozen other things going on...

He flipped the switch in machine.config to use kernel mode HTTP handling - hit 1200 requests per second immediately - and it was obvious that the limitation was no longer the server but the load client...

He explained he chose a 64K test page to prove that the kernelmode driver wouldn't have any datapaging problems with caching...

Re:Too many layers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17745348)

All the vestiges of the NT kernel were removed for the XP / 2003 rewrite
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Re:Too many layers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17748038)

As the other AC alluded to:

C:\>dir c:\windows\system32\*krnl*
Volume in drive C is Local Disk
Volume Serial Number is 3CBC-9BEC

Directory of c:\windows\system32

08/04/2004 12:49 AM 92,224 krnl386.exe
03/01/2005 07:34 PM 2,015,232 ntkrnlpa.exe
03/01/2005 07:57 PM 2,135,552 ntoskrnl.exe
3 File(s) 4,243,008 bytes
0 Dir(s) 3,989,258,240 bytes free

C:\>

You'll have to explain that one. The demo sounded cool, though!

It's Good Stuff (2, Funny)

Unoti (731964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734496)

Say what you will about it, but it works really well. It's a fast easy way to develop AJAX pages: Visual Studio with Atlas. Of course, it's how Lord Vader would develop software, but it's still good stuff.

Browser compatibility? (2, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734654)

So, are they specifically targeting IE and Firefox (at least we're finally past the days when they'd just target IE and say to hell with the rest of the world) or are they building it on commonly-available JS+DOM functions that will work in Opera and Safari as well?

I've been poking around the site, and haven't found anything yet.

Re:Browser compatibility? (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735988)

IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera the supported browsers as of the release.

Re:Browser compatibility? (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17739934)

IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera the supported browsers as of the release.

Thanks. I did eventually spot a reference to IE, Firefox, and Safari (no mention of Opera), but it's good to know that the four major rendering engines (Trident, Gecko, KHTML/WebKit, Presto) are supported.

Re:Browser compatibility? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17747348)

Yeah, Opera is a newcomer in the list of supported browsers. The developers of the various .NET technologies seem to have some autonomy (more or less) from Microsoft's monopoly machine, and they listen a fair bit to the community. Half the reason its not "IE-only".

Re:Browser compatibility? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17739788)

What's weird is in a lot of the pre-release versions, stuff tended to work better in Firefox than in IE 6. I found that very surprising, but cool. :)

dont bash it before you tried it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17734668)

I cant believe it, 99% of the comments are negative, and I bet people havent even bothered to try it.

This is lightyears ahead ruby and all that other mumbo jumbo :9

go ahead, mod me down suckers.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17734764)

agreed. it actually works rather well and i hate using IE so I didn't even bother loading it up. All functionality is there, Microsoft actually did a decent job on their AJAX. Now the real question is, will they allow it to be used on apache or will they restrict it via their license? My bet is they wont allow it on an apache server so they can gain a greater market share, though its doubtful it MUST run on IIS.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (1)

billDCat (448249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734880)

Heh, unlikely. First of all, it's pretty tightly coupled to .NET, designed to use the .NET data binding mechanism. While ultimately it really is just a bunch of JavaScript libraries, it's the fact that a bunch of the connector functions are generated on the fly based on .NET components that tie the libraries to the server technology.

While there is some neat stuff in there, I would rather have a choice of development technologies. That, and the fact that you are relying on the framework running bug-free under the browsers you need to support. If that's not the case, good luck fixing it.

Oh, and I have tried it.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17735628)

Oh, and I have tried it.
If you had tried it, then you would know that the generated (x)html and js is not tied to IE or has any requirement of any kind of .net framework installed, in fact many of the video demos MS (peek around asp.net to check it out yourself) is demonstrated with Firefox.

It it on the server side that everything is tied to MS.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (2, Informative)

billDCat (448249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17742688)

I didn't say it was tied to IE, I know they are supporting other browsers, and are supporting Mac OS. If you re-read my post, I said it was tied to .NET, which is the server part of which you speak.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736242)

Actually you can. Obviously the server side asp.net extensions where you can mark web services as ajax servers and the functionality to raise the nice eventing model requires asp.net at the back end; but the client side libraries (the way to call web services, timers etc.) are released on their own, for use anywhere;

Microsoft AJAX Library

For ASP.NET AJAX development on non-Windows systems, the Microsoft AJAX Library package contains the complete set of client JavaScript components that are included in the full ASP.NET AJAX installation. You may use and modify these scripts in your own applications. To simplify installation, the Microsoft AJAX Library package is available as a compressed (.zip) file.

You can download it yourself [asp.net] and see.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (3, Funny)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17734840)

I cant believe it, 99% of the comments are negative

Oh come on, stop exaggerating. At the time of writing, there are a total of 14 comments in this story. I can't find the 1/7th of one comment which you claim was not negative.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17736142)

> go ahead, mod me down suckers.

And so we did, butt-munch.

Re:dont bash it before you tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17745136)

It doesn't bother anyone that adding a single control/extender to the page can create 8 or 9 new JS files that must be downloaded by the client? They are small, but that can really hurt performance.

Custom controls? (1)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735226)

I wonder. Is it easy to create custom controls with ASP.NET AJAX? At the moment we're working on a ASP.NET 2.0 based web application. One of the demands of the project is that it's completely AJAX driven. We're researching to see if we can make our own custom controls using JSON. The Javascript makes calls to the server-side code which returns HTML in a string.

I looked through the source-code of the Ajax Control Toolkit. The source looks clean - Microsoft seems to have hidden all the complex JSON stuff. But I wonder if it's easy to pick up and run with....

Y

Re:Custom controls? (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735976)

yeah, the source for a lot of the community controls can be viewed and all. The Extenders are incredibly easy to make, because its most of the point (ASP.NET Ajax's name is misleading, as its main appeal is to be able to make reusable client-side code blocks, ajax is second in line, so I prefered when it was called Atlas...oh well!)

Re:Custom controls? (2, Informative)

Bovarchist (782773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17736316)

Yes, it is very easy to implement, even with custom controls. The JSON stuff that you mentioned is built around the .NET postback process and not tied to any individual controls. So any control that posts back to the server (like a series of buttons with a server-side click event) can easily be converted to an "AJAX" control simply by dropping a ScriptManager on the page and wrapping the control in an UpdatePanel.

Any microsoft sites using it? (2, Interesting)

bad_fx (493443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17735452)

Are they eating their own dogfood?

Part of the reason I ask is I notice the MSDN site has a whole lot of new features, but I've found most of it to be horribly slow and clunky in firefox. I'm interested in whether it is using this, and whether there are other examples to look at within Microsoft?

Some of the "showcases" look decent, but most of them just seem like toy sites...

Re:Any microsoft sites using it? (1)

timjones (78467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737228)

Are they eating their own dogfood?
Doesn't matter. I'm not eating it, and neither are the users of any site I have a hand in developing.

Come on, guys - how many times you have to be bitten by these monopolists to realize that they can't be trusted? Or put another way, we (developers) write the rules now, and we don't have to let them in! Or as James T. Kirk said: "Let them die!"

You can't have it both ways... (3, Insightful)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17738090)

TinFoilJones said:

Doesn't matter. I'm not eating it, and neither are the users of any site I have a hand in developing.

Huh? Did he just...? Are the Obvious Police available?

Come on, guys - how many times you have to be bitten by these monopolists to realize that they can't be trusted? Or put another way, we (developers) write the rules now, and we don't have to let them in! Or as James T. Kirk said: "Let them die!"

Are you seriously calling them "monopolists"? How can they be a monopolist in the online, web development arena when folks out there claim that most of the web is dominated by SOTMS (Someone Other Than Microsoft)? You can't have it both ways. They cannot be monopolists if there is a sizeable or even more dominant alernative out there. Now, their philosphy may smack of monopoly, but in reality, they are just another competitor.

OS - Microsoft is a monopoly and Linux, Apple, Sun have failed, or MS is a competitor and Linux, Apple, Sun are doing fine.

Web - Microsoft .NET and IIS are a monopoly and Linux, Apache, Java, Perl, PHP...are dead, or MS is a competitor and others are dominating.

You can't have it both ways. Just admit, you've joined the "in", the "cool", the "hip" crowd of the Anti-Microsoft cult, you've stopped critical thought on the matter, and if it has MS attached, you will instantly hate it. It's o.k. to admit. Really.

Re:Any microsoft sites using it? (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 7 years ago | (#17748352)

I can't speak for this particular framework but Microsoft pretty well dogfoods anything they can. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least a small handful of internal teams trying it out.

I might give this a try (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737046)

I used to be big into PHP web programming, but this was before AJAX got popular. Now I'm thinking of revisiting web programming, changing my mentality to write code with AJAX in mind can be kind of daunting. This toolkit might be the motivation I need as the learning curve seems it might be a little easier than trying to develop in PHP given that I've been out of the loop for a while. Plus, intellisense is friggin awesome.

Re:I might give this a try (1)

claytongulick (725397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737892)

Try Zend studio with PHP. It's "intellisense" rivals VS.Net's.

Intellisense isn't intrinsic to .Net in any way, its just an IDE feature. One that is shared by many other (better IMHO) IDEs.

I've been using VS.Net since the original beta. I just switched career paths to get away from ASP.Net. Now I'm doing almost exclusively PHP, though we do have some C# work coming up.

AJAX isn't intrinsic to any server side language, its a browser feature. You can code AJAX stuff just as easily (easier IMHO) in php as you can in anything else.

From what I've seen, .Net takes a very simple concept and complicates it unbelievably. I love .Net as a framework, I'm a huge fan of C#, but I think that ASP.Net is one of the worst, most unusable and unweildy server side web platforms out there. Granted, ASP.Net 2.0 is leaps and bound better than 1.0. I'm not forming that opinion from any fanboyism, I've been writing code with ASP.Net for at least 6-7 years now (since whenever it was released). Its frustrating, because the rest of .Net is so great - I love writing business classes and backend stuff in .Net, its hands down my favorite platform for that sort of thing.

If you want to do AJAX in PHP or anything else, just write a simple communication wrapper and off you go. Or use one of the oodles and oodles of freely availble frameworks out there, like Dojo, prototype, JSON or whatever.

-Clay

Re:I might give this a try (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17738502)

I've tried Zend Studio, and it's intellisense does not rival VS.Net. Although It's better than any other PHP IDE i've tried.

Been Playing With It (3, Insightful)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17737248)

I've been playing with this since this last summer. It's come a long way. A few Anti-AJAX friends of mine, who honestly, have been using AJAX concepts for years, but didn't know someone had put a pretty ribbon on it and called it AJAX, really like the ASP.NET AJAX. I think what caught them was the RAD ability now.

I like it because I have customers who wanted a more Windows Forms based design for their web-based applications.

The great thing here is, it is capable of turning SharePoint into a really slick platform. I only wish it worked on SharePoint 2.0 the way it works on 3.0, since I still have customers using the older platform.

Re:Been Playing With It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17751822)

Bad news for you... I tried using this was Sharepoint and Atlas (AJAX ASP.NET) were in beta. Unfortunately, the two are incompatible. If you google around, there are a few people who blogged about this, including some from MSFT.

Bunch of losers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17737904)

Microsoft could develope zero-point energy and you guys would still find some reason why it was evil.

Sorry linux has such sorry desktop penetration. QQ some more.

Another breaking release (2, Informative)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17738244)

From their Migrate RC to RTM [asp.net] doc.
The ASP.NET AJAX validator controls that were part of the RC release have been removed. You must remove the following registration entries for those controls from the section and remove any instances of these controls in your pages.

Oh goodie, let me just go back and do that and undo my previous days work. Apparently there will be a fix in the near future [asp.net], but for now there's a bandaid [msdn.com] available.

"anticipated AJAX framework" ? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743852)

Let us look at what AJAX is, HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, XSLT; And some XSD, for those of us that are washed. I prefer not to use the COM objects, because, well, I prefer not to be "Browser Locked" to an older obsolete browser. I RTFA and found nothing to indicate that Microsoft had added any more to its dotNet product than it had before. If I look for ASP in AJAX, it is not there. If I look for upgrades to maybe XSLT 2.0, or maybe CSS 3.0? Nothing is upgraded. Where am I wrong?

Re:"anticipated AJAX framework" ? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17747388)

Its a....framework. As in a toolbox to make development easier. Extenders to the web service framework to support JSON (is that how its spelled?), a bunch of ASP.NET controls for callbacks instead of postbacks, a javascript librairy. Its a framework to ease the use of ajax, thus "an anticipated ajax framework". Do we have a different definition of what a framework is? Its not an Ajax Platform, its an Ajax Framework.

Re:"anticipated AJAX framework" ? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17754444)

JSON (is that how its spelled?)

Good grief, you're on the net. You should never post a question like that. Take a second and google it.

Security (1)

G1975a (913602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17746632)

Isn't the first thing Security people tell people to do to protect against a browser vulnerabilty to disable Javascript? There goes your functionality!

Re:Security (1)

Hamfist (311248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17752752)

AJAX is getting used for many company Intranets to simplify IT support and service delivery. Hosts in the company network will be trusted hosts so Javascript can be left on. Once you are certain that a public service can also be trusted, include them in your list of trusted hosts. If you follow random links off of the pirate bay, turn js off....

Who Cares? (1)

MrMunkey (1039894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17747886)

AJAX isn't all that new. It's just a different way of thinking about how the browser interacts with the server. You *could* make your server programming language handle all this AJAX code to call server-side functions from the client, but wouldn't it be better to see the big picture? JavaScript can be used as more of a client, and the server can be more of... well... a server. Also, people tend to be over-using AJAX, which then brings the web browsing experience to its knees.

I think it's better to just use a JavaScript library to handle a cross-browser implementation of XMLHttpRequest that accesses your server, and your server handles those requests? There's really no need for all this complexity that's being introduced.

JavaScript gets a bad wrap, but I think that's generally from people who don't understand the language. You can do very interesting things with it... you just have to know what you're doing... and what you want it to do.

Good Deal (1)

jerryodom (904532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780898)

For someone who's just getting into doing .NET development full time and coming from a PHP based development environment I'm really happy to see it. Nothing worse than my old employer coming at me with a different AJAX suite every week. If its as easy as everything else I've done with ASP.NET then it'll be a wonderful treat.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...