-----Original Message----- From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Bassler Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Microsoft's future plans for Component Services and ORM
>1.A replacement for COM+ services. It seems to me that a first-class, .Net- >based not COM-based, highly-scalable set of component services is very much >needed to build applications on a par to that which can be created in other >frameworks (namely Java). In order to create these OO applications we need >a comprehensive set of top-notch object services (not an ADO.Net >Transaction object in a Data Access block or a wrapper around COM >services). This entire paragraph confuses me. Web Services, OO, secure Soap Messaging, UDDI, and Enterprise services are all available NOW. The latest and greatest Architecture guides from MS all show Web Services (that you can fully type and define) and Service Interfaces as being the replacement for COM+. This follows since you can now use SOAP with any COM class. I understand that there has been some interest in how Secure this is. However, if the COM+ app is operating at protocol encryption, where is the security issue? >2. .Net is all about OO application designs. However, this paradigm really >falls apart when it gets to the data tier because, again, a first-class >Object Relational Mapper is not available out-of-box. I have been using this product that you desire. I first used it with VS 6.0, although it was not as integrated as it is now in VS .NET 2003 Enterprise Architect. I currently would not be able to start a Software project if I could not open my ORM template in Visio. This product is integrated with the .NET IDE. I will admit that it is not what Rational Rose was in the VB modeler, but that thing never drew a COM class proper anyway. I can not say for certain why MS purchased VISIO and placed in the Development and Office suites. I guess it was a moment of madness on their part. >3. If Microsoft doesn't want to undertake these development efforts let 3rd >parties do it. Why doesn't Microsoft create specifications/open up parts of >the framework so that 3rd parties can create, pluggable components to fill >these obvious gaps ASAP. Then at least we'll have choices as developers. Would someone help me remember the name of that software company that Standardized their application in the Open Source community? The one that gives away the Alpha and Beta versions of their OS and Dev platform almost two years in advance? I even heard that the Platform SDK is available online for any body to access. What was the name of that faltering company from Seattle/San Hose? Oh well I am sure I will remember right after I close my free copy Outlook with the free PGP plug-in. Speaking of Plug-ins... I need to finish writing mine. Will most likely take less time that it took to write my sad little rant. Maybe one day MS will wake up and help me write Dev IDE plug-in's in my sleep. =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 26 Jan 2004, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
