|
.NET adds a lot of extra complexity from multiple avenues with little to be
gained in exchange. I would much prefer a DLL similar to many ASP
components that one might purchase, where the scripting is done in ASP
(VBScript) and the source is open for all to tweak as they see fit.
With
.net you get much better performance and stability than ASP. Imagine if people
started changing the code what a support nightmare that would be for
IPswitch.
I'm a bit scared of .NET regardless of the added complexity. It's a version 1.1 environment, and in moving from 1.0 to 1.1 my only .NET application had issues. Microsoft is known to make changes to such things over time, and incompatibilities could result in tough choices between patches/upgrades and breaking Web mail. .NET seems more suited to be a proprietary programing environment that can be used to drive sales of and dependencies on other Microsoft products such as Visual Studio. That relationship concerns me. Was
this a web app?? The 1.0 and 1.1 frameworks will live happily side by side so if
you had problems it would have been something you did, possibly removing the 1.0
framework and installing the 1.1??? .net is not married to Visual
Studio. There a other development environments out there to create .net
applications. You can use notepad if you want! There is also a project
called Modo which is port the .net framework to
Linux.
I have
many 1.0 and 1.1 apps running on the same box.
I think that from Ipswitch's perspective, they also shouldn't want to be in the position of trying to troubleshoot other people's .NET environments, or risk the future of their Web interface by marrying it so tightly to a new and deeply proprietary environment that will definitely change over time and between versions. This
would be IPSwitches decision. But the environment is not difficult to debug and
what is the difference IPSwitch will just blame it on the NIC. :) There are only
a few config files the are used to setup the way permissions are granted.
IPSwitch should not have to change any of these settings.
Kevin
Bilbee
|
Title: Message
- Re: [IMail Forum] Short survery Peter Richards
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery Kevin Bilbee
- Re: [IMail Forum] Short survery Matt
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery Kevin Bilbee
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery maillists
- SV: [IMail Forum] Short survery Robert
- Re: SV: [IMail Forum] Short survery Matti Haack
- Re: [IMail Forum] Short survery Keif Gwinn
- SV: [IMail Forum] Short survery FreeSoft Interactive
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery Lawrence Morck
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery Lawrence Morck
- Re: [IMail Forum] Short survery Spaminator
- RE: [IMail Forum] Short survery Anthony Polselli
