Re: ASP vs ASP.NET
Sorry, i didnt see that. reguardless.
Business needs are important. But IMHO if i see a business need leading
into a roadblock i feel the need to speak out and let those who actually
make the "business needs" see the light at the end of the tunnel or the wall
at the end of the tunnel.
Might not be true for others, but at least where i am they like to tie
business needs and implementation togeather.
Example: Using webclasses is a specific requirement within the project i'm
working for now. Any server which can run webclasses can run classic asp,
and classic asp could accomplish all other requirements. While classic asp
is just as supported as webclasses (not much), it's more popular and
solutions to some issues are easier to find. classic asp also avoids dll
registration problems and easier to automate replication and deployment.
classic asp is also easier to port in the future to asp.net.
if they specify that the application should be capable of being easily
ported to both unix/apache and iis, or capable of running on iis4/nt4 then
that would be a much more valid "business need" that i wouldnt argue with.
Just because it doesnt tie implementation and needs togeather.
"Zenobia" <6.20.zenobia@s pamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:dueod0p205 df56qesiubub9ja jrpchi2hm@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:24:45 GMT, jeff.nospam@zin a.com (Jeff
> Cochran) wrote:
>[color=green]
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0400, "shalafi" <jack@bone.co m> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Dont think anyone would argue with that.
> >>
> >>But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
> >>newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>business need.[/color]
> >
> >Except it was posted in *both* groups... :)
> >
> >Jeff[/color]
>
> The thread started in the ASP group only. I cross-posted my
> reply to the root post in the ASP.NET group.
>[/color]
Sorry, i didnt see that. reguardless.
Business needs are important. But IMHO if i see a business need leading
into a roadblock i feel the need to speak out and let those who actually
make the "business needs" see the light at the end of the tunnel or the wall
at the end of the tunnel.
Might not be true for others, but at least where i am they like to tie
business needs and implementation togeather.
Example: Using webclasses is a specific requirement within the project i'm
working for now. Any server which can run webclasses can run classic asp,
and classic asp could accomplish all other requirements. While classic asp
is just as supported as webclasses (not much), it's more popular and
solutions to some issues are easier to find. classic asp also avoids dll
registration problems and easier to automate replication and deployment.
classic asp is also easier to port in the future to asp.net.
if they specify that the application should be capable of being easily
ported to both unix/apache and iis, or capable of running on iis4/nt4 then
that would be a much more valid "business need" that i wouldnt argue with.
Just because it doesnt tie implementation and needs togeather.
"Zenobia" <6.20.zenobia@s pamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:dueod0p205 df56qesiubub9ja jrpchi2hm@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:24:45 GMT, jeff.nospam@zin a.com (Jeff
> Cochran) wrote:
>[color=green]
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0400, "shalafi" <jack@bone.co m> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Dont think anyone would argue with that.
> >>
> >>But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
> >>newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>business need.[/color]
> >
> >Except it was posted in *both* groups... :)
> >
> >Jeff[/color]
>
> The thread started in the ASP group only. I cross-posted my
> reply to the root post in the ASP.NET group.
>[/color]
Comment