.NET for Apache 541
PerlGuy was so kind as to forward us the news about the joint Apache/Microsoft combined press conference scheduled from Wednesday at the OSCON Quote: "We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's
development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest
announcements of the conference..."
The email he recieved: Covalent Technologies will be holding a press conference at the O'Reilly
Conference on Wednesday at 3:15 in suite 415 (during the afternoon break).
We will announce news related to the Apache web server and Microsoft's
development technology, .NET. This should be one of the biggest
announcements of the conference and an interesting follow up to Microsoft's
appearance last year at the show as well as to their general comments on
open source. Executives will be on hand to answer questions or to conduct
one-on-one interviews after the announcement.
Uh-oh (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Mono? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the guys who've done this have based their work on Mono, they certainly haven't informed the project. My educated guess is that this uses the
No big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes me curious is what platforms they'll support Apache on . .
Running apache (Score:1, Interesting)
Just IMHO.
Your links say the opposite. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this was at least partly due to the crappy Microsoft JDBC driver (which they couldn't even get to stay up for 8 hours).
Why am I not surprised that in a test of the Microsoft JDBC driver vs
These studies just point out that you're better off going with a non-Microsoft solution.
I ring to rule them all.... (Score:1, Interesting)
.net is not evil (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want to have everything run on a server and use a dumb terminal. No sense making it even easier for Ashcroft to read my stuff than it already is. But Web services, by nature, are things that already use the Internet - things that might as well be hanging on a building in Times Square, for all Ashcroft cares.
To check stocks, I have to go to cnbc.com. It's an ugly interface. Why can't I double-click on a program that uses native widgets and displays that same information? To read and reply to Slashdot, I have to slashdot.org. It's uglier than a female dwarf (or KDE). Why can't I have Slashdot in a Win32-native interface? Think NNTP, but better-looking and more powerful.
To write a document, I open up AbiWord. If I'm writing a story about the stock market, why can't I just open up my stock market program, drag a box into my document, and have live numbers for the Dow? If I'm writing a story about AMD, why can't I just open up my Slashdot program, drag a box into my document, and have a link to the story inserted into my document; and why can't the person on the other end open the document, double-click my link, and have the Slashdot story opened in place - without needing a web browser?
As Miguel de Icaza said, you shouldn't just not use Mono because it's a copy of a MS product - after all, Linux itself is a copy of non-free UNIX from AT&T. If/when the time comes that Microsoft decides to cut off
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
.NET did not invent web services (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a very important point because it seems like a lot of people are willing to hand Microsoft some sort of invention credits for web services, when the reality is that where appropriate web services are a no brainer extension of the basic paradigm of the net (hell, POP3 could be considered a "web service": I don't have to use Outlook Web Access! Again, long before
Bait and Switch (Score:2, Interesting)
Newsworthiness/Rejected Stories (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SOAP, WDSL, etc. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not difficult at all to do SOAP in Apache (well, Tomcat actually:) with Java... you just write your service class and then write a deployment descriptor, then throw the whole thing in a WAR and drop it in the webservices directory. I had a simple stub up and running in about a day... and I was still teaching myself Java at the time. All I needed to do was flesh out the business logic and it was all ready to go. Of course, I've since decided my architecture was crap and thrown the whole thing out because it turns out I didn't need SOAP to begin with, but it ain't hard to do... I could very quickly build a SOAP front-end to the new code.
Now, I did have the advantage that my service was not meant to be a public service--it's a simple interface between us and one of our vendors--so I didn't bother figuring out how to do the WSDL.
What services? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not mean to troll you (look at my posting history), but I want to ask: What services do you mean? I don't ask for application specifics, company names, etc, I just hear a lot about web "services" and see very little except planning and idle banter. What would require .NET as long as you have server-side applications which meet the protocols in question? Isn't the point of SOAP that any client can get "services" from a server/app so-equipped? I think I'm missing something.
Would you mind sharing a bit? TIA...
-B
stop this FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
You are obviously a fucking moron since you repeat this blatant Microsoft FUD.
1. Microsoft singled out part of the Open Source in their usual divide and conquer strategy.
2. Microsoft loves BSD because it loves to "borrow" BSD code and incorporate it into its proprietary products. This saves Microsoft quite a bit of money and, many would argue, gives them better quality code too.
3. I see that you have swalloed the "viral" propaganda. Perhaps you can explain to me how exactly GPL "infects" stuff? Maybe you mean the fact that GPL does not permit you to take the code you don't own and incorporate it into your proprietary product? But the same is true of Microsoft's code! You can't take their "shared source" and use it in your product either. With GPL, at least, you can use, modify, and distribute the code all you want as long as you distribute derivative works under GPL. With Microsoft, you have no such option. Why, Microsoft is the virus! I also want to know how exactly GPL "touches" stuff. Oh what you actually mean is that GPL "touches" the code when the company willingly decides to use GPL code in their proprietary product.
If microsoft has never done anything to help any apache or open source effort, why did they fly a few of the zend people into redmond for a week, having them perf tune php on iis ?
Uhhm, because it helps Microsoft, not Open Source. PHP is the most widely used server-side scripting language. It sure helps to have it run well on your web server.
Why is there a mod_frontpage for apache that microsoft publishes ?
Because it helps them to sell Frontpage and install viral software on Unix.
Oh yeah, you assume a lot of stuff about microsoft that is wrong, which makes you kind of an idiot.
Re:.net is not evil - just irrelevant (Score:1, Interesting)
The real problem is that a great majority of the uses for web services (as opposed to
The most obvious thing for an end-user ends up being fairly stale. Yes, one of the examples in MS' Office XP Web Services Toolkit is a spreadsheet that interacts with a web service to pull 20-min. delayed stock quotes based on the stock tickers you've supplied in the spreadsheet. The kinds of things that are really useful with web services are things that have historically been implemented in proprietary manners, such as checking inventories at local stores in a retail chain from the chain's web site (ie Best Buy's order online/pickup locally option, which probably wasn't originally implemented in
The simple fact is that the real must-have application for web services for end-users won't come along until a large number of developers are really comfortable with web services, and then it's not likely that it'll come from some large corporation. It'll just be something like Napster that comes out of nowhere from some college student finding new ways to use old ideas.