By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,851 Members | 1,033 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,851 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dotnet beginner's questions

P: n/a
Hello,

I am very new to donet and wondering how to solve the following scenario:

(1) Our current hosted site has .Net 1.1 and can be upgraded to 2.0 if
needed. Some downtime are expected and may have unexpected problems though.

(2) Local environment installed both 1.1 and 2.0 framework and 2.0 SDK.

(3) Currently, all our ASP and HTML pages are working fine but we are
planning to gradually moving to DOTNET

Questions:

(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general public,
and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1 or 2.0
framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or 1.1 based on
the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that we're just learning
it?

(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way that we
could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to use 1.1 as the
default testing mood? In this case, do we have to remove 2.0 framework and
SDK and only use 1.1

(2) Multi-language issue: In classic ASP and/or HTML pages, we incorporated
double-byte fonts by using "CodePage" and "Charset" and English fonts are
automatically included. However, is it true that we need to use "utf-8"
instead of "Big5" or "950" in ASPX pages?

(3) Recommended books for converting ASP pages to ASPX pages: Many of our
ASP pages are developed by a 3rd party vendors using VBscript, and we wish
to gradually move them to ASPX pages. Are there any good books that we
could use for "real life" and "practical" examples.

Many thanks in advance.
Jul 4 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
1) I would go to 2.0 if you are just learning, as it has the latest bits.

2) You can set up either platform to be default. To do this, run
aspnet_regiis with the /i flag for which ever framework you wish to be
default. If you wish to use both frameworks, the not default can be
installed with /ir, which installs, but does not make the default. You can
set single sites to a framework, as well.

2 again) As ASP.NET allows you to localize rather easily, it is easier to
retool your pages than worry about code pages at the level you have been in
ASP. I have not tried, but I see no reason you cannot still switch code
pages, I am just not sure it is the easiest, or best, option.

3) The switch depends on how heavily you use session to store info (common
in ASP), as any info stored in session will have to be migrated from ASp to
ASP.NET as the user uses the site. It is your primary pain with dual sites.
http://www.asp101.com/articles/sidne...te/default.asp

There is also an article on MSDN from a few years back, but I cannot find it
right now.

--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*************************************************
"xfile" <co*****@remove.nospam.comwrote in message
news:O4****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Hello,

I am very new to donet and wondering how to solve the following scenario:

(1) Our current hosted site has .Net 1.1 and can be upgraded to 2.0 if
needed. Some downtime are expected and may have unexpected problems
though.

(2) Local environment installed both 1.1 and 2.0 framework and 2.0 SDK.

(3) Currently, all our ASP and HTML pages are working fine but we are
planning to gradually moving to DOTNET

Questions:

(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general public,
and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1 or 2.0
framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or 1.1 based on
the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that we're just learning
it?

(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way that we
could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to use 1.1 as the
default testing mood? In this case, do we have to remove 2.0 framework
and SDK and only use 1.1

(2) Multi-language issue: In classic ASP and/or HTML pages, we
incorporated double-byte fonts by using "CodePage" and "Charset" and
English fonts are automatically included. However, is it true that we
need to use "utf-8" instead of "Big5" or "950" in ASPX pages?

(3) Recommended books for converting ASP pages to ASPX pages: Many of our
ASP pages are developed by a 3rd party vendors using VBscript, and we wish
to gradually move them to ASPX pages. Are there any good books that we
could use for "real life" and "practical" examples.

Many thanks in advance.

Jul 4 '06 #2

P: n/a
Hello xfile,

x(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general
xpublic, and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1
xor 2.0 framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or
x1.1 based on the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that
xwe're just learning it?

..net fw 1.1 and 2.0 works fine side-by-side.
..NET 2.0 has a lot of new features that improve you work. If you are not
harnessed into EI env where a lot of .net 1.1 code exists you can start new
developing under .net 2.0

x(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way
xthat we could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to
xuse 1.1 as the default testing mood? In this case, do we have to
xremove 2.0 framework and SDK and only use 1.1

To add to Cowboy, you can set desired ASP.net version handler in the properties
of the webSite into IIS
The local enviroment could be set by vsvars32.bat from the <VS>\Common7\Tools\
folder

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche

Jul 4 '06 #3

P: n/a
Hi,

Thanks for your kind reply.

(1) I don't know what is EI environment but guess we will be aiming to the
"general public" instead of "specific targeted groups" and if people do run
Windows Update, and they should have 2.0 as time goes by. So guess using
2.0 as suggested will be better. But we wish to set 1.1 as the default
testing environment just to ensure both platform will accept it.

Thanks for the tips for setting local environment and I do see it under the
ASP.NET tag under IIS default site properties.

Guess we still have a long way to go.
"Michael Nemtsev" <ne*****@msn.comwrote in message
news:17***************************@msnews.microsof t.com...
Hello xfile,

x(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general
xpublic, and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1
xor 2.0 framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or
x1.1 based on the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that
xwe're just learning it?

.net fw 1.1 and 2.0 works fine side-by-side.
.NET 2.0 has a lot of new features that improve you work. If you are not
harnessed into EI env where a lot of .net 1.1 code exists you can start
new developing under .net 2.0

x(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way
xthat we could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to
xuse 1.1 as the default testing mood? In this case, do we have to
xremove 2.0 framework and SDK and only use 1.1

To add to Cowboy, you can set desired ASP.net version handler in the
properties of the webSite into IIS
The local enviroment could be set by vsvars32.bat from the
<VS>\Common7\Tools\ folder

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche

Jul 5 '06 #4

P: n/a
Hi,

Many thanks for your kind reply:

(1) I think it's better for us to use 2.0 as suggested by you and Michael.
However, we might set the testing environment using 1.1 so that we could
ensure anything developed will work on both platforms. PS: But I guess
that's a long way to be there.

(2) For localized characters: I assume it should be relatively easy. But we
are still experiencing it and have some mixed results.

(3) Thanks for the link and we will look into it. Just to share, we also
found this from MS:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...migrissues.asp

There is another article titled "Migrating from ASP to ASP.NET" that can be
found from the search result from MS but turned out to be a broken link.

PS: After some studies, we also found another potential roadblock is that
ASP and ASP.NET seems to be using different programming languages - VBScript
and VB.NET, respectively. Honestly speaking, we already have troubles of
understanding VBScript needless to say, VB.NET.

In any case, that's what we meant by "gradually" :)

Many thanks to your kind help.
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamMwrote in
message news:ue**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
1) I would go to 2.0 if you are just learning, as it has the latest bits.

2) You can set up either platform to be default. To do this, run
aspnet_regiis with the /i flag for which ever framework you wish to be
default. If you wish to use both frameworks, the not default can be
installed with /ir, which installs, but does not make the default. You can
set single sites to a framework, as well.

2 again) As ASP.NET allows you to localize rather easily, it is easier to
retool your pages than worry about code pages at the level you have been
in ASP. I have not tried, but I see no reason you cannot still switch code
pages, I am just not sure it is the easiest, or best, option.

3) The switch depends on how heavily you use session to store info (common
in ASP), as any info stored in session will have to be migrated from ASp
to ASP.NET as the user uses the site. It is your primary pain with dual
sites.
http://www.asp101.com/articles/sidne...te/default.asp

There is also an article on MSDN from a few years back, but I cannot find
it right now.

--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*************************************************
"xfile" <co*****@remove.nospam.comwrote in message
news:O4****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>Hello,

I am very new to donet and wondering how to solve the following scenario:

(1) Our current hosted site has .Net 1.1 and can be upgraded to 2.0 if
needed. Some downtime are expected and may have unexpected problems
though.

(2) Local environment installed both 1.1 and 2.0 framework and 2.0 SDK.

(3) Currently, all our ASP and HTML pages are working fine but we are
planning to gradually moving to DOTNET

Questions:

(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general public,
and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1 or 2.0
framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or 1.1 based on
the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that we're just
learning it?

(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way that
we could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to use 1.1 as
the default testing mood? In this case, do we have to remove 2.0
framework and SDK and only use 1.1

(2) Multi-language issue: In classic ASP and/or HTML pages, we
incorporated double-byte fonts by using "CodePage" and "Charset" and
English fonts are automatically included. However, is it true that we
need to use "utf-8" instead of "Big5" or "950" in ASPX pages?

(3) Recommended books for converting ASP pages to ASPX pages: Many of our
ASP pages are developed by a 3rd party vendors using VBscript, and we
wish to gradually move them to ASPX pages. Are there any good books that
we could use for "real life" and "practical" examples.

Many thanks in advance.


Jul 5 '06 #5

P: n/a
>if people do run Windows Update, and they should have 2.0 as time goes
>by. So guess using 2.0 as suggested will be better.
Hi,

This shouldn't be a problem for you if I understand your requirements
properly (porting existing ASP sites / creating new ones). DotNet2.0 will
be installed / running on your webserver to service client requests through
your sites. DotNet2.0, via ASP.NET2.0, will process the file(s) on the
server and return formatted HTML to the client - therefore the only
requirement of the client is that they have a browser installed. The client
only needs Dotnet2.0 installed on their machine if they are running windows
(typically form) based code.

Regards,

- Paul.

"xfile" <co*****@remove.nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Hi,

Thanks for your kind reply.

(1) I don't know what is EI environment but guess we will be aiming to the
"general public" instead of "specific targeted groups" and if people do
run Windows Update, and they should have 2.0 as time goes by. So guess
using 2.0 as suggested will be better. But we wish to set 1.1 as the
default testing environment just to ensure both platform will accept it.

Thanks for the tips for setting local environment and I do see it under
the ASP.NET tag under IIS default site properties.

Guess we still have a long way to go.
"Michael Nemtsev" <ne*****@msn.comwrote in message
news:17***************************@msnews.microsof t.com...
>Hello xfile,

x(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general
xpublic, and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1
xor 2.0 framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or
x1.1 based on the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that
xwe're just learning it?

.net fw 1.1 and 2.0 works fine side-by-side.
.NET 2.0 has a lot of new features that improve you work. If you are not
harnessed into EI env where a lot of .net 1.1 code exists you can start
new developing under .net 2.0

x(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way
xthat we could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to
xuse 1.1 as the default testing mood? In this case, do we have to
xremove 2.0 framework and SDK and only use 1.1

To add to Cowboy, you can set desired ASP.net version handler in the
properties of the webSite into IIS
The local enviroment could be set by vsvars32.bat from the
<VS>\Common7\Tools\ folder

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche


Jul 6 '06 #6

P: n/a
Hi,
DotNet2.0 will be installed / running on your webserver to service client
requests through your sites.
Yes.
DotNet2.0, via ASP.NET2.0, will process the file(s) on the server and
return formatted HTML to the client - therefore the only requirement of
the client is that they have a browser installed.
OK.
The client only needs Dotnet2.0 installed on their machine if they are
running windows (typically form) based code.
Good to know. Although it's still too early for me to worry, it seems that
"applications" (I don't really understand this term in here) developed by
DotNet 2.0 can only work on 2.0 framework and developed by 1.1 will only
work on 1.1 Framework - I read something like this from somewhere before if
I remembered correctly.

And many people do not run Windows Update frequently or not at all, so I was
guessing that if I could use the latest versions of development kits and
components (2.0 and 3.0 seems to be coming out soon) but aiming to the
earliest version for compatibility (1.1), I would have a safe bet? That's
the logic behind my lengthy questions.

Many thanks for your kind reply.

"Paul" <no****@noone.comwrote in message
news:uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>if people do run Windows Update, and they should have 2.0 as time goes
by. So guess using 2.0 as suggested will be better.

Hi,

This shouldn't be a problem for you if I understand your requirements
properly (porting existing ASP sites / creating new ones). DotNet2.0 will
be installed / running on your webserver to service client requests
through your sites. DotNet2.0, via ASP.NET2.0, will process the file(s)
on the server and return formatted HTML to the client - therefore the only
requirement of the client is that they have a browser installed. The
client only needs Dotnet2.0 installed on their machine if they are running
windows (typically form) based code.

Regards,

- Paul.

"xfile" <co*****@remove.nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>Hi,

Thanks for your kind reply.

(1) I don't know what is EI environment but guess we will be aiming to
the "general public" instead of "specific targeted groups" and if people
do run Windows Update, and they should have 2.0 as time goes by. So
guess using 2.0 as suggested will be better. But we wish to set 1.1 as
the default testing environment just to ensure both platform will accept
it.

Thanks for the tips for setting local environment and I do see it under
the ASP.NET tag under IIS default site properties.

Guess we still have a long way to go.
"Michael Nemtsev" <ne*****@msn.comwrote in message
news:17***************************@msnews.microso ft.com...
>>Hello xfile,

x(1) In terms of "technical platform", our audience is the general
xpublic, and we have no way of knowing if they are installed with 1.1
xor 2.0 framework. In this case, should we just go for using 2.0 or
x1.1 based on the maximum degree of compatibility, and the fact that
xwe're just learning it?

.net fw 1.1 and 2.0 works fine side-by-side.
.NET 2.0 has a lot of new features that improve you work. If you are not
harnessed into EI env where a lot of .net 1.1 code exists you can start
new developing under .net 2.0

x(2) Setting 1.1 runtime environment as the default: Is there a way
xthat we could set the local environment (IIS 5.0 in Win XP Pro) to
xuse 1.1 as the default testing mood? In this case, do we have to
xremove 2.0 framework and SDK and only use 1.1

To add to Cowboy, you can set desired ASP.net version handler in the
properties of the webSite into IIS
The local enviroment could be set by vsvars32.bat from the
<VS>\Common7\Tools\ folder

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche



Jul 7 '06 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.