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

ASP.NET
ASP.NET2.0向其它网页传递信息的方法
基于 pureXML 技术的数据库表结构扩展
利用缓冲技术提高JSP程序的性能和稳定性
ASP.NET常用的三十三种实用代码
用ASP.Net实现在线压缩和解压缩
编程高手 ASP.NET 状态管理
flash菜单与asp.net进行交互
ASP.NET1.1中动态树的实现
ASP.NET 设计中的 N 个技巧
基于.NET平台的分层架构实战(五)接口的设计与实现
.NET平台依赖注入机制及IoC的设计与实现
依赖注入机制及IoC的设计与实现
数据访问层的第一种实现:Access+SQL
超简单实现 .NET开发类似Web Parts的功能
剖析ASP.NET AJAX的面向对象思想
WPF自定义漂亮的按钮样式
ASP.NET中常用的26个优化性能方法
用Xaml做网页框架
从UI->DB一条龙到代码生成到EOS,谈谈快速开发
ASP.NET ViewState 初探 (1)

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: 202 ::
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.