当前位置: 首页 > 图文教程 > 网络编程 > ASP.NET > IsVS.NETreadyforenterprise?(6)

ASP.NET
FreeTextBox(版本3.1.6)在ASP.Net 2.0中使用方法
.NET 常用功能和代码小结
在 .NET Framework 2.0 中未处理的异常导致基于 ASP.NET 的应用程序意外退出
asp.net IList查询数据后格式化数据再绑定控件
asp.net sql存储过程
asp.net 简单实现禁用或启用页面中的某一类型的控件
asp.net(c#)获取内容第一张图片地址的函数
The remote procedure call failed and did not execute的解决办法
ASP.NET 在线文件管理
asp.net 读取并修改config文件实现代码
ASP.NET Cookie 操作实现
asp.net Silverlight中的模式窗体
Silverlight中动态获取Web Service地址
asp.net Silverlight应用程序中获取载体aspx页面参数
asp.net 水晶报表隔行换色实现方法
asp.net 获取Gridview隐藏列的值
手动把asp.net的类生成dll文件的方法
asp.net 使用ObjectDataSource控件在ASP.NET中实现Ajax真分页
动态指定任意类型的ObjectDataSource对象的查询参数
asp.net Md5的用法小结

ASP.NET 中的 IsVS.NETreadyforenterprise?(6)


出处:互联网   整理: 软晨网(RuanChen.com)   发布: 2009-11-03   浏览: 86 ::
收藏到网摘: n/a


LT: Given that the .NET platform is open to all ISVs, doesn't this mean that developers can mix and match .NET-aware lifecycle tools and get this kind of integration?
MD: There are different levels of integration. The VS.NET environment provides much more integration, and in that sense it is certainly easier to use different vendors' tools. But you still face the issue of deeper semantic integration, such as data integration. With different vendors' products, will you get, for example, common representation of use cases between your requirements management tool and your modeling tool? You benefit from deeper semantic integration, where each tool knows how the rest work.
For another example, our component test tools rely heavily on information stored in the models for test-case generation and test-stub generation. That's harder to integrate between vendors. So you can get good UI integration and control integration across vendors, but not data integration and process integration. Deep integration helps us in providing more lightweight, agile versions of lifecycle tools as well. That's why we didn't just port our stuff to .NET. We rearchitected it. The fundamentals don't change with .NET, or with lifecycle tools, but the practicality of using them with a wider variety of projects will.

LT: The old saw goes, "Wait for rev 3 of any MS product; by then it will be in great shape." That has to be doubly true with a technology as vast as .NET. What would you tell development managers who think they should sit on the sideline and let others work with the inevitable bugs in a first release this ambitious?
MD: Like all technologies, there will be glitches along the way. However, we've been impressed with the completeness and robustness of both VS.NET and Microsoft .NET. Remember, in the past we integrated with many Microsoft technologies but only embedded a few in our product. Now our basic product architecture depends upon Microsoft technology. We cannot ship if VS.NET does not work. Our experience (having built millions of lines of code on this stuff) is that this is a stable platform. We are betting our business on it, and I am happy to say that we are completely confident. Admittedly, we were pretty scared a year ago, but it is now clear that we made exactly the right bet. Those companies that "wait for version 3.0" will simply miss the boat. Those that move quickly should see (and must demand) immediate business returns.