Re: Technology euology

[.net noobie]

I think people who have WCF stuff they can't get rid of in a hurry who want
to move away from full .net framework are maybe the intended audience

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 19:20, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> WCF Core... It lives on
>> https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF
>>
>
> I don't know why they bothered. I can't easily imagine any situation where
> you would want to take a Framework WCF service and port it to Core. Use
> some newer libraries or features maybe? But you might as well try to strip
> the layers off the core service code and divide and conquer to upgrade. No
> one in their right mind would actually want to write new stuff using WCF,
> so the whole project leaves me rather bewildered.
>
> OpenSilver, web assembly version of Silverlight
>> https://www.opensilver.net/
>>
>
> I looked at that a couple of years ago, and it was completely ludicrous. A
> gigantic tangle of HTML5 trying to do what Silverlight did without the
> milcore-like rendering power.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: Technology euology

[Greg Keogh]

>
> WCF Core... It lives on
> https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF
>

I don't know why they bothered. I can't easily imagine any situation where
you would want to take a Framework WCF service and port it to Core. Use
some newer libraries or features maybe? But you might as well try to strip
the layers off the core service code and divide and conquer to upgrade. No
one in their right mind would actually want to write new stuff using WCF,
so the whole project leaves me rather bewildered.

OpenSilver, web assembly version of Silverlight
> https://www.opensilver.net/
>

I looked at that a couple of years ago, and it was completely ludicrous. A
gigantic tangle of HTML5 trying to do what Silverlight did without the
milcore-like rendering power.

*Greg K*

Re: Technology euology

[.net noobie]

WCF Core... It lives on

https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF

OpenSilver, web assembly version of Silverlight

https://www.opensilver.net/

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022, 4:09 pm Greg Keogh,  wrote:

> Hi Tom, it's not Friday but...
>
> WCF - I can still remember Juval Lowy telling us how it will solve all our
>> problems lol
>>
>
> Still good riddance. I think it took me 2 years to find a working sample
> of how to make a "behavior" to put out-of-band data in the traffic headers.
> I wonder how many man-years I spent editing WCF config file sections
>
>
>> Blazor - done a few business apps now with this and found it quite
>> simple. Unfortunately I still don’t see the market here in Aus taking it
>> seriously.
>>
>
> My spidey-sense is seeing steadily increasing Blazor articles, meetups and
> 3rd party support, so I think it's pretty serious. I said several weeks ago
> that server-side web apps are dead to me thanks to Blazor (but it's no
> Silverlight!!)
>
> *Greg*
>

Re: Technology euology

[Greg Keogh]

Hi Tom, it's not Friday but...

WCF - I can still remember Juval Lowy telling us how it will solve all our
> problems lol
>

Still good riddance. I think it took me 2 years to find a working sample of
how to make a "behavior" to put out-of-band data in the traffic headers. I
wonder how many man-years I spent editing WCF config file sections


> Blazor - done a few business apps now with this and found it quite simple.
> Unfortunately I still don’t see the market here in Aus taking it seriously.
>

My spidey-sense is seeing steadily increasing Blazor articles, meetups and
3rd party support, so I think it's pretty serious. I said several weeks ago
that server-side web apps are dead to me thanks to Blazor (but it's no
Silverlight!!)

*Greg*

Re: Technology euology

[Tom Rutter]

WCF - I can still remember Juval Lowy telling us how it will solve all our
problems lol

Blazor - done a few business apps now with this and found it quite simple.
Unfortunately I still don’t see the market here in Aus taking it seriously.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 10:03, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> TGIF folks,
>
> I've had a large suite of projects stuck on Framework 4.5 because of old
> servers, but finally I have the chance to upgrade them to newer platforms
> and use newer tools and libraries. I have decided that all existing full
> Framework projects will simply go up to 4.8, but all new projects will be
> in .NET 6 and all web apps will be Blazor (death from above to server-side
> web apps!).
>
> During my research I noticed some interesting obsolete technologies in
> .NET Core. You probably all know this, but I'd like to make a personal
> eulogy.
>
> *Remoting
> *
> - Farewell old chum. I used this in Framework 1.0 to write a distributed
> client-server suite with callbacks for notifications. The amount of core
> code was surprisingly small and simple. Before the arrival of Remoting,
> writing such a thing would have scared the pants off the most confident
> coder. You could have used a VB6 server or written C sockets or RPC or
> whatever, but think of the effort and the fragile results!
>
> *AppDomains* - Strange things, but useful in certain circumstances to
> load (and unload) libraries. Closely related to Remoting and the next item.
> Using separate processes to get a similar effect is a heavyweight and
> cumbersome alternative. I found I own a single old utility project that
> uses an AppDoman.
>
> *CAS
> *
> - Yeah, don't slam the door on the way out. What a weird thing ...
> sophisticated security boundaries buried inside .NET. I never used a single
> CAS feature in 20 years, preferring to just handball security issues to the
> operating system. I think it's historically interesting that something so
> comprehensive was created and advertised prominently in books and articles,
> then trivially dismissed as not useful.
>
> *WCF* - Mostly good riddance. Jeez that thing was complicated to
> configure, because it tried to do everything for everyone everywhere. I
> still miss the SOAP protocol and WSDL. What angers me is that it's all been
> replaced by REST, an omni-shambles of a so-called convention that looks
> like some kid's high school project.
>
> There endeth the rant. Comments and recriminations welcome.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: Technology euology

[Greg Keogh]

>
> I literally have my .net security book from Apress holding up my monitor
> and it's about 10cm away from my fingers at the moment. I spent ages
> learning that and all the other stuff you mention.
>

I can see the cover from Melbourne. Albahari's C# 5 in a Nutshell devotes
21 pages to CAS and 14 pages to AppDomains. Richter's CLR via C# has a 26
page chapter on AppDomains. I threw out my SAMS book on WCF years ago
because it was so verbose and so poorly written.

Congratulations on writing RPC in C and assembler!! Good old fashioned bare
knuckle coding. I last wrote assembler on an IBM mainframe in 1991 -- *Greg*

Re: Technology euology

[Tony McGee]

> Remoting - Farewell old chum.

I believe they're called smart contracts these days ;-)

T

Re: Technology euology

[Preet Sangha]

I literally have my .net security book from Apress holding up my monitor
and it's about 10cm away from my fingers at the moment. I spent ages
learning that and all the other stuff you mention.

I spent a considerable time in my early career building RPC over serial
ports in C and assembler so that will always hold a place in my heart :-D
 But having spent years (!) time doing XML-based services I'm perfectly
happy to see fewer angle brackets though!


regards,
Preet, in Auckland NZ



On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 12:03, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> TGIF folks,
>
> I've had a large suite of projects stuck on Framework 4.5 because of old
> servers, but finally I have the chance to upgrade them to newer platforms
> and use newer tools and libraries. I have decided that all existing full
> Framework projects will simply go up to 4.8, but all new projects will be
> in .NET 6 and all web apps will be Blazor (death from above to server-side
> web apps!).
>
> During my research I noticed some interesting obsolete technologies in
> .NET Core. You probably all know this, but I'd like to make a personal
> eulogy.
>
> *Remoting
> *
> - Farewell old chum. I used this in Framework 1.0 to write a distributed
> client-server suite with callbacks for notifications. The amount of core
> code was surprisingly small and simple. Before the arrival of Remoting,
> writing such a thing would have scared the pants off the most confident
> coder. You could have used a VB6 server or written C sockets or RPC or
> whatever, but think of the effort and the fragile results!
>
> *AppDomains* - Strange things, but useful in certain circumstances to
> load (and unload) libraries. Closely related to Remoting and the next item.
> Using separate processes to get a similar effect is a heavyweight and
> cumbersome alternative. I found I own a single old utility project that
> uses an AppDoman.
>
> *CAS
> *
> - Yeah, don't slam the door on the way out. What a weird thing ...
> sophisticated security boundaries buried inside .NET. I never used a single
> CAS feature in 20 years, preferring to just handball security issues to the
> operating system. I think it's historically interesting that something so
> comprehensive was created and advertised prominently in books and articles,
> then trivially dismissed as not useful.
>
> *WCF* - Mostly good riddance. Jeez that thing was complicated to
> configure, because it tried to do everything for everyone everywhere. I
> still miss the SOAP protocol and WSDL. What angers me is that it's all been
> replaced by REST, an omni-shambles of a so-called convention that looks
> like some kid's high school project.
>
> There endeth the rant. Comments and recriminations welcome.
>
> *Greg K*
>