“Avalon” applications and Microsoft Windows.Forms applications share many similarities. Both are managed solutions with many of the same underpinnings governing .NET Framework-based applications. There are, however, also differences between the two application models. Understanding these similarities and differences will help you assess how to adapt an existing Windows Forms application to take advantage of the capabilities in “Longhorn.” On other news, Longhorn is set to kill middleware: the server version of Longhorn will include business process orchestration features to allow users to link together Web services, among other tasks, without the need for additional middleware.
Developer Guide to Migration and Interoperability in “Longhorn”
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
As usual I love Microsoft’s technology, but hate how they apply it. I’m simultaneously a Mac user and a big fan of .NET. (I love Cocoa, too.)
Avalon looks like a really cool technology, but Longhorn’s user interface, which I assume is built using it, is just laughable compared to OS X.
And yes, that’s just my opinion.
“Avalon looks like a really cool technology, but Longhorn’s user interface, which I assume is built using it, is just laughable compared to OS X.”
What does that have to do with the article?
This post is going to get deteleted most probably, but don’t compare OS X with Avalon. Avalon is not trying to be an eye candy to the user. It is more like a set of powerful APIs. It is extremely powerful, there was a flash demo for what it can do in one of the component developers somewhere on the internet. You can manipulate the window easily and yet the mouse clicks still work.
I understand exactly what Avalon is, what XAML is, etc. I’m a professional .NET developer. It’s what I do for a living.
Here’s the relevance: I find it interesting that Microsoft can create a user interface API as technologically compelling as Avalon and turn around and use it in such a messy, uncompelling way. Of course, I’m only critiquing the screenshots I’ve seen of Longhorn.
I’m excited about trying Avalon out, don’t get me wrong. I just think they’re using the finest tools (Avalon) to build something clunky and ugly (the Longhorn user interface).
In sum: Avalon looks cool, proving once again that Microsoft has lots of engineering talent. The Longhorn UI (presumably built with Avalon) is ugly, proving once again that Microsoft has no artistic talent.
Hm, I see forward that there are another couple of software areas (including broad ones like middleware) that will be dead soon as web browsing technology is almost dead today.
hi
instead of this xml based interface that ms is supposed to be innovating we already have a working product thats available for download ie) mozilla xul
Avalon is set to be a native API for Windows, the most popular desktop operating system in the world. XUL is a native API for nothing.
Avalon will have transformation effects which will leverage the new 3D renderer on Longhorn. XUL has no such features.
XUL is in an entirely different problem domain than Avalon. Why bother mentioning it?
Actually, here is where I’ll defend Microsoft.
.NET is a very different animal from the rest of MS when it comes to security. In a way similar to Java, .NET applications run in a managed execution environment that prevents most of the kinds of exploits (usually buffer overruns) that have plagued previous applications. I’m not going to tell you .NET applications are 100% secure. Only time will tell, but I have greater confidence in them than in legacy applications.
hi
xul is markup. avalon is actions based on such markup. xul already can be associated with any kind of actions you would want to.
talk about it after you have learned it
“In sum: Avalon looks cool, proving once again that Microsoft has lots of engineering talent.”
So, like I said, what does this have to do with the post?
“shame noone will buy Longhorn after the mess MS have dug themselves into with Nimbda,Code Red,Blaster etc etc.”
Wow. I’m new here, but does anybody ever comment on-topic?
Maybe I’m just confused, and there was a hidden message in the post that said “Attack Microsoft! Defend Microsoft!”
From where I’m sitting, though, it looks to me like the post was mostly about how UI development is going to change in Longhorn. Maybe I’m crazy. And blind.
Blind and crazy.
That said, if you really believe nobody’s going to buy Longhorn, then you’re out of your mind.
“xul is markup. avalon is actions based on such markup. xul already can be associated with any kind of actions you would want to.”
Since it seems like nobody posts on topic, I guess I won’t either.
Here’s the problem:
Given what I understand about xul and what I understand about Longhorn, xul would have to be extended quite a bit in order to accommodate all the functionality developers are going to want out of Longhorn.
Currently, XAML handles these issues, and it does so splendidly – a tight integration between Avalon and XAML exists, which is great for developers. There’s no reason to go back to the drawing board and redo everything from the ground up just to make use of an XML application that isn’t currently fit for the job.
Then, if Microsoft *did* use xul, and if Microsoft *did* extend it, you’d hear cries of “bloody murder!” from different camps because Microsoft had dared to take xul and modify it (which it would *have* to do).
What you’re asking, then, is too much. XAML currently does the job, and xul isn’t up to it.
Since xul really just contains a subset of the functionality of XAML, why don’t we just retrofit Mozilla with XAML? Doesn’t sound too nice, does it?
Anyway, XAML’s closet cousin is SVG, so if something else were to be used, that would have been it, but in using XAML, MS isn’t going to anger anybody in the xul/svg crowds (although it seems that no matter what MS does, *somebody* is going to get mad).
Most of the screenshots shown on the web or in magazines don’t contain most of the tech that is talked about in this article. The closest, is the ones that have the white theme with the alpha blended border and toolbar. But I doubt that’s the final look. Just look at whistler to XP. But anyway in the end there probably will be third party themers who will come out with better stuff.
“I got the impression MS could have easily made a C++ IDE and make it easy to work with C++ instead of designing their own language.”
They have made a C++ IDE, and C++ is one of the languages supported in .NET (in addition to standard, good old fashioned “standard” C++).
There aren’t many reasons to use C++ with .NET, though. C# is a fine language, and .NET is a fine framework. C++ still definitely has its place in the Windows world, but not so much in application development which is mostly what .NET is used for.
“And .NET has no linker so everything depends on the framework being installed and the different versions of the framework could cause problems.”
A linker would kill .NET. I can currently create a .NET DLL on my XP box and drop it on my PocketPC (different CPU/OS), and it will still work (there are, of course, some gotchas). If I linked platform specific libraries to my exe, then my exe would no longer be portable.
There are advantages and disadvantages to having the runtime on the system rather than linked into the exe – For one, the resulting binaries are extremely small by today’s *applications* standards. For another, it makes portability between systems pretty easy. Granted this currently just means that it’s easy to move between Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Longhorn/CE, but that’s changing with projects like Mono.
Linking, like C++, has its place – .NET just isn’t one of them, and it isn’t a bad thing in this case.
“In sum: Avalon looks cool, proving once again that Microsoft has lots of engineering talent.”
So, like I said, what does this have to do with the post?
None of the posts were that bad. People are generally polite and topics are always discussed on OSnews around the topic (sorry we’re not directly quoting from the article and commenting on it). You said you are new… from slashdot maybe? you’ve got that “Holier than thou” attitude that slashies sometimes have. I know I’m sinking to your level by posting an arsehole comment like this but i like the comments and the community of osnews because theres no links to goatse, no FP’s and no people like you.
Gareth
“You said you are new… from slashdot maybe?”
I’m actually just surprised – Somebody posts something about Longhorn, and people immediately jump in with the “Micorosft sucks!” stuff. It doesn’t make any sense – why not just have a special “Microsoft sucks” category?
For any given post, it seems like only 1 out of 10 comments actually has anything at all to do with the topic of the post. Most of it is just bashing of some sort or another, and that’s what surprised me.
Hi
Many people feel that microsoft software sucks and express their opinion whenever some “innovation” comes up
“Many people feel that microsoft software sucks”
So why post about it when it has nothing to do with the topic?
Nobody claimed anything about an innovation. The post was about shifting development from traditional Windows Forms .NET desktop development to the models being used in Longhorn.
How did that provoke anger, rants, and flames? Get a grip, my friend. Your hatred is counter-productive. If you’re concerned with battling Microsoft, then take the time you’d normally spend trashing MS, and get to work coding the competition.
Hi
why dont you stop advising and do something useful then.
“The post was about shifting development from traditional Windows Forms .NET desktop development to the models being used in Longhorn.”
when did .net development model become traditional?
even if it did moving towards a new development model isnt called innovation?
“If you’re concerned with battling Microsoft”
This is no war. This is just technical and ethical issues of software development and how a competent technological company is moving forward with it.
“even if it did moving towards a new development model isnt called innovation?”
The post didn’t refer to it as being innovative. This is why it’s unnecessary to attack based on the grounds that someone has claimed that it’s innovative.
[knock, knock]
Hello-o-o-o-o-o-o…
“when did .net development model become traditional?”
Oh, dear lord.
I said “traditional .NET development” – this creates a boundary of development within the .NET world. I’m not saying that development at large is traditionally .NET, nor did I imply it. I’m referring to development as it has been traditionally done in .NET. That is to say…
…oh, never mind. If you didn’t get it the first time, you’re not going to get it this time.
“This is just technical and ethical issues of software development…”
There is very little (if any) technical/ethical merit to any of the conversations that are going on here.
Hi
You are convenient. so you claim there is no technical merit fine. go find some other place then
“You are convenient.”
What’s that supposed to mean?
“go find some other place then”
I didn’t say I wasn’t enjoying myself.
Hi
“You are convenient”
Well. If i had to explain that it would lose its charm. really if you can find better forums to enjoy yourself you can go ahead
“Well. If i had to explain that it would lose its charm.”
But it would gain meaning!
“if you can find better forums to enjoy yourself you can go ahead”
I suppose this would also lose its “charm” if you had to explain it.
That said, I’m “enjoy” myself very much in this forum, thankyouverymuch.
Hi
“I didn’t say I wasn’t enjoying myself.”
“That said, I’m “enjoy” myself very much in this forum, thankyouverymuch.”
make up your mind
“make up your mind”
English lesson:
—————————————-
“I didn’t say I wasn’t enjoying myself.”
“That said, I’m “enjoy” myself very much in this forum, thankyouverymuch.”
—————————————-
These two phrases mean basically the *same* thing.
In other words, I’m having a great time, thankyouverymuch.
“When writing be consistent.”
Sorry. Didn’t mean to use so much variation in my language. I can understand how that might be confusing (note: I’m lying for the sake of making you feel more comfortable).
“Meaning isnt everything”
Of course. Without meaning, we can enjoy language as confusing gibberish, which certainly has its place (note: I’m lying again).
Consistency, my anonymous friend, has its place in a well-whipped pancake batter.
Hi
are you talking to yourself now?
thats weird