ASP.NET

30-Sep-10 1:52

Ok I'll try to keep this short as I know a lot of you are busy like myself. The compnay I work for is going to implement a intranet site, of which I'll be solely working on it (lucky me). So it's going to be up to me to get everything working and looking good. The problem I have is I haven't done web programming in about 8+ years. I'm thinking going the ASP route will be easiest as I've been doing a lot of VB and C# in the past 2 years. However I'm not really sure what it is I'm going to need to get this site up and going. Do I just need to get my boss to get IIS up and running or is there more? This is the first time I'm going to be on this side of the site as well so it's going to be a learning exp. Any help or tips is greatly appreciated.

Not Active30-Sep-10 2:35

30-Sep-10 2:35

Many of your questions can't really be answered since we have no background on what your requirements are. Is the site data-driven? Do you require a high degree of user interaction? Are their memberships involved, i.e. login and registration?

By ASP I'm hoping you really mean ASP.NET. These are two completely different technologies that require different tools and knowledge. I would advocate ASP.NET with C#. Some will argue that the language doesn't matter, however, there are more samples of higher quality in C# than in VB.NET, something you will need if you are learning/re-learning web development.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

MacRaider430-Sep-10 3:00

30-Sep-10 3:00

See I told you it's been a while. Yes it will be ASP.Net and more than likely using C# as I've been using that more lately. Well as of right now the plan is to make the site mostly informational. Will need to have it connect to a database for some info, not sure if it will be SQL or Access as of now. There will be no log in or registration involved as of this point in time. As I get more proficient in the web realm again I'll be adding some training modules to the site (probably a good 1 - 2 years away as this is more of a side project). Again it's been a long time for me so I don't know if these modules are something I'll be able to do easy enough in ASP (once I learn more obviously) or use something like Director (Am I dating myself or what Big Grin | :-D

)
I think I mentioned, but it will be a intranet site so I won't have to worry about outside people looking at it.
Biggest road block is my boss thinks Windows Server 2000 is the greatest thing and everything else doesn't work. We just got 2 2008 servers (for development as we upgrade) and he's convinced that nothing works and that it's just plain junk. I'm just so lucky, what can I say.

Consider DotNetNuke

David Mujica30-Sep-10 3:14

David Mujica

30-Sep-10 3:14

Since it seems that at first you want to make it informational, then later maybe add some custom programming I would seriously consider DotNetNuke.

There is a good learning curve, but it gives you a BIG head start in delivering a functional Intranet.

http://www.dotnetnuke.com/[^]

I've used it in the past and found it to be really great.

Good luck.
Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Not Active30-Sep-10 3:41

30-Sep-10 3:41

I wouldn't recommend DotNetNuke to anyone. One, it's VB.NET where he is more familiar with C#. Two, its an overblown bloated framework for people who don't understand how to do web development. The OP wants to learn, not just follow a template

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

ScottM130-Sep-10 20:51

ScottM1

30-Sep-10 20:51

Seconded

DiscoJimmy1-Oct-10 2:41

DiscoJimmy

1-Oct-10 2:41

Thirded.

We set up a site here at work recently and someone suggested DotNetNuke. So far it's been lots of the hassles and restrictions you get with magic black box solutions, and none of the benefits. I'm given to understand that if you want non-programmers to constantly be changing the content on your site, it can be handy, but otherwise it's a real PITA. Myself, I prefer more bare bones, flexible solution. If you already know C# I'd suggest just doing a basic ASP.NET site. It's not as rapid and clean as Ruby on Rails or CakePHP, but it works.

ScottM11-Oct-10 2:44

ScottM1

1-Oct-10 2:44

I remember trying DotNetNuke and thinking that Sharepoint was better OMG | :OMG:

Fabio Franco1-Oct-10 5:07

Fabio Franco

1-Oct-10 5:07

Fourthed?

MacRaider41-Oct-10 6:20

1-Oct-10 6:20

Yeah I think I'm going to avoid DotNetNuke, I'd rather learn how to do things and have more control...

Fabio Franco1-Oct-10 6:31

Fabio Franco

1-Oct-10 6:31

"I'd rather learn how to do things and have more control"

That's the best decision you'll ever make.

MacRaider430-Sep-10 3:45

30-Sep-10 3:45

Ok ultra newbie question... I've read some through thier site and I'm still not sure the answer to this, thus the ultra newbie question. I would still need to run IIS or is this something similar? Remind me never to voulenteer for something again...

Not Active30-Sep-10 3:47

30-Sep-10 3:47

It runs on IIS. I would avoid this framework though.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Not Active30-Sep-10 3:45

30-Sep-10 3:45

I would certainly try convincing the boss to pull his head out of the sand and actually look at the facts, Server 2008 is an improvement over 2000.

I would also recommend avoiding Access for web development. SQL Server, even SQL Express, which is free, will give you better performance and potential for upgrading in the future. You may want to consider ASP.NET MVC. It will provide good modularity and testability. What version of Visual Studio will you be using? What framework version?

Depending on what these training modules consist of you may want to consider Silverlight.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

MacRaider430-Sep-10 3:53

30-Sep-10 3:53

Ok we are using VS 2010 though I do have a copy of 2005. One of the new 2008 Servers does have SQL Server 2008 on it. Would just need to convince the other programmer/DBA that I should use that rather than Access. Though this does bring up a question and one new to me thus the reason I'm asking. Right now everyone is on "Domain A" the new servers are on "Domain B", would they be able to interact. Obvously there is no one here I can ask that question to as you may have guessed from thinking 2000 is the best thing ever.
I've been using Aptana as my HTML editor since HomeSite isn't avaiable any more Sigh | :sigh:

yes I know I need to upgrade too, but at least I'm willing to.
As far as framework, I can honestly say I haven't even thought that far ahead yet.
The training would be for the inhouse applications we use, so would need to dummy something up to look like it but with obviously limited functionality for training.

Not Active30-Sep-10 4:03

30-Sep-10 4:03

Domain A access Domain B is a question of the trust relationships established between the domains. Something your network people should have set up, other wise no, the two domains will not be able to communicate and authenticate between each other.

There is plenty of info available comparing Access and SQL Server, but essentially Access was designed as a desktop database for single user usage, not what you want for a high availability web application. Access also doesn't support features like stored procedures that can be used to increase performance of the application.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

MacRaider430-Sep-10 4:24

30-Sep-10 4:24

Ok so that will be a big NO on the domains so it looks like my only choice will be Server 2000 running what ever version of IIS it will alow me to. Though we did just pull a server off line that was 2000 so maybe I can convince him to turn that into the "web server" and I can hopefully install SQL Server Express on that. I kinda figured SQL was the better choice for the above mentioned reasons.

djdanlib1-Oct-10 5:48

djdanlib

1-Oct-10 5:48

Disclaimer: I'm the sysadmin for a development lab in a very large company that is somewhat responsible for the existence of personal computers and networks. I've used everything Microsoft makes several times over in my lab; usually around 20-30 servers on one particular flavor of Windows. Perhaps I have a few more resources than your average sysadmin when it comes to these things.

Win2K falls on its face when you compare it to Win2008. There's just no comparison. You really, really, really want to use 2008 instead. The interface is different, to be sure, but remember that Win2K was a radical departure from NT's interface when it came out. It was the first NT to use the Windows 95 interface! (Does that say anything about its age?) It's not harder to use, you just have to relearn how to do some operations. It does consume more resources. Again, this is NOT a new idea - remember the same thing happens every time a new OS comes out.

You're also going to be stuck with IIS 5.0 and .NET 2.0 SP2 which are NOT the place you want to be starting in the year 2010. IIS 5.0 has more holes than Swiss cheese, and .NET 2.0 SP2 doesn't give you a whole lot of innovative features - you're really missing out. Neither product is getting a lot of updates, especially IIS 5.0, and there will be no new features added. You can't upgrade on Win2K - these are the last versions that support that OS. Visual Studio 2005 used .NET 2.0. If you use anything newer you'll have to weed through the options to turn OFF all the features you want to use because they're not available in that version, and you'll be one of those people posting comments here on CodeProject like "I like your article but I can't compile your code because it uses WPF / .NET 3.0 features. Can you post a version that works in .NET 2?"

If I was in your shoes, my argument would be something along the lines of (but in more tactful language) : "No! You do NOT build new servers that will go on a network with an OS that is no longer being patched by the manufacturer! This is beyond End of Support, it's past the End of Life stage. You cannot maintain it. Even if I wanted to upgrade it later, that would be impossible - there is no upgrade path from that to a modern OS without going through another unsupported OS for which we do not have a license or media. I cannot use new development tools or libraries, and this limits my ability to make the most useful product. Instead, we'll be stuck with something from the 90's that doesn't really improve our current process. If you want to maximize the value of this new project, you should put it on a modern server running a modern OS, and it will have a good future." ... But watch your tongue, because saying things like that to the boss verbatim would NOT be a wise move.

At my company, this server would not even be allowed to exist. I'd get in a lot of trouble with the network security people if they found it on the network. There are many, many unpatched vulnerabilities, and Microsoft is NOT going to patch them. Whenever a new exploit comes out, it usually applies to Win2k if it applies to Win2k3 or WinXP - and guess what, MS is patching Win2k3 and WinXP, but not Win2K! Some people say "Microsoft hasn't been releasing as many patches for it, so it must be more secure!" and they are utterly, completely wrong!

It sounds like you're really getting screwed by someone who lives in the past and can't be bothered to catch up. To be brutally honest: Your project *might* see the light of day, but I wouldn't count on it lasting a year if you're stuck running it on 10 year old technology. Don't get stuck with a failure on your plate. It's not really worth the paychecks you'll make between now and the project's eventual completion or cancellation - you could make the same paycheck doing other things at your job that WON'T make your coworkers hate you now or a year from now when they have to use your project. I truly feel for you and wish you the best of luck if you are totally stuck with Win2K Sigh | :sigh:

The painful upgrade path I mentioned will be: Win2000 -> Win2003 R2 -> Win2008 R2.

MacRaider41-Oct-10 6:16

1-Oct-10 6:16

Ok I'll give you the short short version. The company I work for has roughly 45 employees in it. The IT Department is 3 people, 2 of which believe Windows Server 2008 and VS 2010 don't work and that Active Directory is useless and again doesn't work. Then there is me... If it was up to me I'd at least put this on the one Win 2k3 server we have, but that is currently a Terminal Server and I really know the answer to asking to install IIS on it. The two new servers are for testing purposes and for writing the upgraded software (circa VS 6 to 2010) of which the other programmer asked yesterday "when do we give up because this stuff is junk and doesn't work and just stay with what we have". The copy of Visual Studio 2005 that is "here" is my personal copy and they just bought 2010 2 months ago with the new servers. (On a side note, I started here last year, and before that was out of programming for about 7 years, I was hired because the last thing I used was VB 6 and everyone else that applied only knew 2005 and newer). Also, we are currently running NT 4 as our PDC.... ok are you off the ground yet from laughing yet?
As you will see some place above, I've already asked about the two domains "talking" to each other. So the current answer is no and that isn't going to change, because "that will screw everything up if we do that".
So long story short, best case I'll be able to use the 2000 server and worst case I'll have to do all programming with basically HTML, with some JS and keeping in mind that I need to write it for IE 6 as he won't upgrade the terminal servers past there as IE 8 "is junk and doesn't work". Are you noticing a pattern here?
I have about 4 years left with one of them, and about 10 with the other.
I like where I work, but lets face it... Sniff | :^)

Also as I said, this is just a side project that is "up and running" with just a basic me spending way too much time having to hard code everything site. The other part of my day is spent between loading in new business data into our software and upgrading VB 6 programs to VB 2010 and some newer things in C#.
Ok I guess that wasn't quite as short as I planned on.