.Net 'applets' ?

[genc ymeri]

Hello there,
What MS has designed/aimed/or assumed that programmers will use for .Net
'Applets' (equivalent of the Java applets) ?

IMHO, even though .Net has been around for years, most of the components (if
not all) for image manipulations, scanning for ASP.Net are still ActiveX
controls. I did google and there is no much information out there for
building .Net 'applets'. Basically those few links show how a winform
control can be run in IE . That's fine, I expected this in the first place.
But what it worries me is that (based on those links) there are so many
problems, especially with updating the .net framework from 1.1 to 2.0. In
that case the .Net 'applet' controls do not behave the same. (Also in
another link I read that in .Net 2.0, .Net 'applets' would not start running
unless clicked over .... or problems of other nature....)

Finding no much information from MS how to build .Net 'applets', it lead me
think that MS has done this deliberately when better approaches may be
available......(or I may have the wrong assumption )

Any inputs/tips/hints/opinions/links are very much appreciated,

Thanks in advance,

Genc Ymeri
Sr. Software Engineer
Reston, VA




PS:
We are trying to get rid of the ocx/activex(s) written in VB6 for image
viewing/scanning/annotations and other image manipulations. We still use
ActiveX/OCX withASP.Net. We hate the fact they need to be installed in
client machines but at this point I 'see' no better alternatives......

 

[Andrew Thompson]

...better approaches may be available.

A Java applet or application launched using Web Start.

Both are free floating from the browser window once
launched, and free of the most vexing forms of
incompatibilities that arise in different versions
of different browsers, running on a slew of OS'.

Once a Web Start enabled Java Plug-In is on the
client machine, JVM update becomes automatic
(the user is guided through it) if needed.

For some Web Start examples, see this page..
<http://www.physci.org/jws/>

HTH

Andrew T.

 

[Steve C. Orr [MCSD, MVP, CSM, ASP Insider]]

I don't know where you got your information, but I can tell you from
experience that.NET 2.0 WinForm controls embedded in a web browser work just
as well as .NET 1.1 controls.
Also, the user doesn't need to click on it to activate it if you code it
right.

 

[genc ymeri]

I can tell you from experience that.NET 2.0 WinForm controls embedded in a
web browser work just as well as .NET 1.1 controls.

Also, the user doesn't need to click on it to activate it if you code it
right.

Thanks for your input Steve. I have been testing last few days with 1.1
framework. So far is not going that bad at all. I can easly run .net
winforms in IE, accessing with javascript its methods and properties from
'outside' , etc,,,,,

Here are the problems I got so far which I'm still working on :

1. It works fine when the app is hosted from some IIS servers but it works
'quirky' in some others. The main winform in 'applet' will show but not
inside components (all of the IIS servers where I tested my app are 2003
ones, shipped with .Net framework 1.1 sp1).

2. The same problem when the application is hosted locally in different XP
workstastions. In some of them work OK and in some not. (all of them with
..Net framework 1.1 sp1 installed)

Not sure why this discrepancy comes in. It worked fine in all my home
PCs....initially I thought that comes from diff version of .Net frameworks in
different IIS servers i did (OS: Server 2003 with .net 1.1.4322.2300 or
1.1.4322.2032) but later on I had systems from both version where controls
showed up properly in client side. From my own testing .net framework
version in client side didn't matter. If the components showed up properly in
the IE being run localy in the IIS then it showed up in all clients. I wonder
if it still going to run if no .Net framework is in the client side.

Probably it got to do with corporate security software which may be turned
on or off in some PC. Haven't got a conclusion yet.

3. I get "Click to activiate and use this control" in all the PCs and I
tested. I read that comes from a legal battle of MS with EOLA ... but
whatever... I read some article how can I get rid of

Still testing......

Thanks a zillion,

Genc Ymeri
Northrop Grumman IT
Sr. Software Engineer
Chantilly, VA

------------

I don't know where you got your information, but I can tell you from
experience that.NET 2.0 WinForm controls embedded in a web browser work just
as well as .NET 1.1 controls.
Also, the user doesn't need to click on it to activate it if you code it
right.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr,
MCSD, MVP, CSM, ASPInsider
http://SteveOrr.net

Hello there,
What MS has designed/aimed/or assumed that programmers will use for .Net
'Applets' (equivalent of the Java applets) ?

IMHO, even though .Net has been around for years, most of the components
(if not all) for image manipulations, scanning for ASP.Net are still
ActiveX controls. I did google and there is no much information out there
for building .Net 'applets'. Basically those few links show how a winform
control can be run in IE . That's fine, I expected this in the first
place. But what it worries me is that (based on those links) there are so
many problems, especially with updating the .net framework from 1.1 to
2.0. In that case the .Net 'applet' controls do not behave the same. (Also
in another link I read that in .Net 2.0, .Net 'applets' would not start
running unless clicked over .... or problems of other nature....)

Finding no much information from MS how to build .Net 'applets', it lead
me think that MS has done this deliberately when better approaches may be
available......(or I may have the wrong assumption )

Any inputs/tips/hints/opinions/links are very much appreciated,

Thanks in advance,

Genc Ymeri
Sr. Software Engineer
Reston, VA




PS:
We are trying to get rid of the ocx/activex(s) written in VB6 for image
viewing/scanning/annotations and other image manipulations. We still use
ActiveX/OCX withASP.Net. We hate the fact they need to be installed in
client machines but at this point I 'see' no better alternatives......