For anyone not familiar with this area: You can make use UO.NET with ASP, though you need to call the .NET client side interface from a COM wrapper. That is: ASP>Wrapper>UO.NET>U2
Similarly, you can use the UniObjects COM component from .NET: .NET Client>Wrapper>UO>U2 Personally I'm more of a purist and prefer either COM or .NET all the way through. In real life we're frequently finding our .NET code called from COM applications like Microsoft Office, or making use of existing COM DLLs from within our .NET code. There are good reasons to use one or the other, and real pains sometimes in mixing the two. But what's important here is that it looks like Kathy believes that changing the communications components may require completely changing the web GUI. That is not correct. Make the decision about switching from ASP to ASP.NET on its own merits, and switching UO to UO.NET or other components on their own merits as well. .NET isn't just another technology for its own sake, it fixes a Lot of the problems of prior technologies. The more you use .NET all the way through the better. But don't feel like you're forced to do a mass conversion or nothing at all. Feel free to contact me off-list if that needs clarification. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com > From: Symeon Breen > Sorry i have only ever played with uniobjects with ASP > and never used it in anger - i use uniobjects.net - it > is correct you should not use the old uniobjects with > .net but use the uniobjects.net api as this is fully > managed code. > > However I am quite sure some people on this list do > use uniobjects with asp. > From: Kathy_NC > > We are using classic ASP and UniObjects (not .NET). > > > > I'm trying to figure out if I need to re-write this > > app using .Net or take some other approach to solve > > the issues we're having. ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
