|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember trying DotNetNuke and thinking that Sharepoint was better 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I think I'm going to avoid DotNetNuke, I'd rather learn how to do things and have more control...
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd rather learn how to do things and have more control"
That's the best decision you'll ever make.
|
|
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
It runs on IIS. I would avoid this framework though.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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  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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 
The painful upgrade path I mentioned will be: Win2000 -> Win2003 R2 -> Win2008 R2.
|
|
|
|
|
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... 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Although I'm probably a wee bit of a fanboy in the direction of PHP/MySQL, I agree with djdan wholeheartedly on the whole 'stop living in the 90's with something that is no longer supported' sentiment. It's not a good path to follow, and will potentially cause more problems the longer you try to support it.
My only serious contribution would be to work on this project from a spare machine 'off the intranet' at the start - or at least not easily accessible - and for simplicities sake install a copy of WAMP (Windows Apache MySQL PHP - or the Linux/Mac equivalents) on it, swapping MSSQL and ASP.NET in place of MySQL and PHP. This gives you a single independently running development platform that uses what you know, is fairly painless to maintain, and is kept 'up-to-date' - at least more so than what you currently have to work with. Plus, it's free to download (well ok, minus the licenses for MSSQL/ASP.NET perhaps), and has a large infrastructure of community support.
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead and use Server 2000 to make the boss happy. But then run WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Perl/Python) as your web server. [^]
Many more (or more reliable) tools/frameworks available if you run an Apache server.
Melting Away
www.deals-house.com
www.innovative--concepts.com
|
|
|
|
|
How much of a resource hog is IIS? Maybe I can steal a XP Pro machine... I think you can run IIS on that if I remember right.
|
|
|
|
|
If you really want to LEARN web development, stay away from ASP.NET WebForms, which is one great big abstraction on top of the Web.
I would definitely recommend using ASP.NET MVC. It doesn't hide anything, you'll be learning real web programming skills that can even transfer to other languages. I've been using it now for almost 2 years. Recently, I started picking up Ruby on Rails, and found that a lot of my experience transferred right over. Webforms experience doesn't transfer over to really anything. Then again, I've never been a 'drag-and-dropper', always a hand-coder.
That being said, you'll have to actually learn things like HTML, CSS, and Javascript, which can remain hidden from you with WebForms. They are available in WebForms, too, if you dig deep enough. But, if you really want to learn, then I believe MVC is the way to go.
It's the way things are going. In the short-term, WebForms is still the dominant framework, but MVC is building steam and will take over in the long-term.
We live in a world operated by science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
--Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
I once knew HTML, CSS and could get by with JavaScript but it's been way too long. Plus it looks like HTML 5 is out or on it's way so I'm sure that will be more to learn. Any ways I'm more like you and actually want to know what I'm doing vs the drag and drop method (of which I think is kinda good to get something working quick for a prototype, but nothing more than that).
I'm a big book kinda guy, so are there any good ones you can suggest to get me on my way. From the looks of it I'm going to be stuck using a Windows 2000 Server for at least a year or two so I'm not sure what that is going to limit me to. I was looking at VS 2005 last night and the web forms and it's not very intuitive anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Either of these should help you.
ASP.NET 3.5 Unleashed[^]
Pro ASP.NET 3.5 in C# 2008[^]
Since you have VS2010 I wouldn't even consider using VS2005. Uninstall it completely, you don't even need it. I don't remember (and too lazy to look) if .NET 4.0 will install on Server 2000. If it does, use it.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like I'm currently stuck with .Net 2.0 with Server 2000, so I'll go with the ASP.Net 2.0 Unleashed book.
Thanks for all the help.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a new book out that I just got a week ago, and it's proving to be a good one. It's called ASP.NET Design Patterns[^].
It shows you how to structure a web application, and is applicable to WebForms and MVC. A lot of the information is actually language agnostic, and can be applied to other situations, too.
I'm currently in Chapter 5, but I like what I've read so far.
Another thing I recommend: a subscription to Safari Books Online. I've got it here at work, and it's great.
We live in a world operated by science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
--Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Several years ago, circa 2005, I did a similar project for my company. It was also an on the side project. I had Windows 2003 and Sql 2005 Express to work with. It was a single page with web parts that could be loaded or unloaded based on your AD account.
I did look at DotNetNuke back then but decided it was overkill for what I wanted. It took me a couple weeks to get the main site up, including creating all the graphics (Not very good).
So, I said all that to say that, a couple of ASP.Net books and Google enabled me to learn and create the site in short order.
We are now running SharePoint 2007 and I was able to reuse some of the web parts in SharePoint.
So I'd stick with Asp.net and C#.
|
|
|
|
|
From the looks of it that is going to be the path I'm going to take. Maybe, there is a copy of 2003 kicking around, I still have to ask. But I'll be going with hopefully something with IIS and SQL Express.
Yeah I get to do the graphics and that too, thank god there is a lot of free stuff out there and now some decent sites to help with color choices.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I've gotten IIS running on my local XP PC. Probably about the same as running on Win 2000 Server, but at least it's something. Just wanted to thank everyone for their input, and now off to remembering all those things I've forgotten and learning new things.
|
|
|
|
|
hai
i have a problem in connecting sqlserver
my connection string is
con = New SqlConnection("Network Library =DBMSSOCN; server = 210.211.225.48; database = CarDb; user id = sas; password =poi098;timeout = 60")
but it is giving the following error
A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.)
please help me
Thanks in advance
Vijay Kumar
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
