.NET Overview

1
.NET Overview

• Geoff Snowman
• .NET Evangelist
• gsnowman_at_microsoft.com

2
Agenda

• .NET Goals
• .NET Framework and Languages
• Application Types
• Case Study

3
App Dev Trends Late 90s

• Application Integration troubles
• XML
• Windows forms hard to deploy
• Web forms hard to develop
• Many inconsistent APIs
• Application drives language choice

4
.NET Solution

• Clean Start for API Design
• Object-Oriented Approach
• Support for Many Languages
• XML
• Drive Vision across all Products

5
.NET Microsofts Vision of a New Generation for
Application Development
6
Agenda

• .NET Goals
• .NET Framework and Languages
• Application Types
• Case Study

7
Implementation and Benefits.NET Framework and
Tools
Visual Studio .NET
Common Language Runtime
Operating System
8
Implementation and BenefitsCommon Language
Runtime
Visual Studio .NET
Common Language Runtime
Operating System
9
Implementation and Benefits Compilation and
Execution
Compilation
At installation or the first time each method is
called
10
Implementation and Benefits.NET Framework Class
Library
Visual Studio .NET
Common Language Runtime
Operating System
11
Implementation and Benefits.NET Framework Class
Library
System.Web
System.Windows.Forms
Services
UI
Design
ComponentModel
Description
HtmlControls
Discovery
WebControls
Protocols
System.Drawing
Caching
Security
Drawing2D
Printing
Configuration
SessionState
Imaging
Text
System.Data
System.Xml
OleDb
SqlClient
XSLT
Serialization
Common
SQLTypes
XPath
System
Collections
IO
Security
Runtime
InteropServices
Configuration
Net
ServiceProcess
Remoting
Diagnostics
Reflection
Text
Serialization
Globalization
Resources
Threading
12
Implementation and Benefits.NET Languages
Visual Studio .NET
Common Language Runtime
Operating System
13
.NET Languages (Microsoft)

• Microsoft Visual Basic.NET
• Microsoft C
• Microsoft C (Managed/Unmanaged)
• Microsoft J

14
.NET Languages (Others)

• APL
• Fujitsu COBOL
• Micro Focus COBOL
• Eiffel
• Forth
• FORTRAN 95
• Haskell
• Mercury
• Mondrian

• Oberon
• Pascal
• Perl
• Python
• RPG
• S
• Scheme
• Standard Meta Language

15
Agenda

• .NET Goals
• .NET Framework and Languages
• Application Types
• Case Study

16
Windows Forms

• XCOPY Deployment
• Web Deployment
• Side by Side DLLs
• VB provides full functionality

17
Demo
18
Web Forms

• Event-Driven Programming Model
• Server Controls
• Code Behind
• ADO.NET
• Session State Scalability
• IIS 6.0
• High-Performance Caching
• Multiple Authentication Techniques

19
Server Controls

• Programmable, server-side objects
• Properties, methods and events
• Encapsulate both behavior and rendering
• HTML, XML, WML, script, etc.
• You can create server controls
• Custom controls
• User controls
• Or derive from existing controls

20
ASP.NET Pages Part Declarative, Part Code

• Combines declarative tags (HTML, ASP directives,
  server controls and static text) with code
• Unlike ASP, good separation provided between code
  and tags

single file
separate files (code-behind)
code
code
lttagsgt
lttagsgt
Form1.aspx
Form1.aspx
Form1.vb
21
Classic ASP vs. ASP.NET
Classic ASP
ASP.NET

• No separation of presentation from business logic
• No built-in support for up/down level browsers
• Spaghetti code
• Limited session management

• Clean separation of presentation logic from
  business logic
• Controls render to support browser
• Server controls remove spaghetti code
• Session mgt now supports separate session server
  or db server

Presentation Tier

• Compiled
• Event-based programming
• Structured error handling
• Full support for XML data, web services, XSLT
  transformation

• Scripted
• Top-down processing
• Limited error handling
• No support for XML/XSL

Programming Model

• IDE allows debugging from UI to DB
• Very high performance
• Xcopy deployment model
• Full access to windows or custom security model
• Full support for object, page caching

• Difficult debugging
• Mediocre performance
• Difficult deployment
• No built in security
• No support for caching

Development Features
22
Demo
23
Windows Services

• Easy to create in any .NET language
• INSTALLUTIL supplied by .NET Framework

24
Smart Device Applications (2003)

• .NET Compact Framework
• Created using standard .NET tools and languages

25
Demo
26
Mobile Web Applications (2003)

• Server controls
• Markup optimized by device
• Created using standard .NET tools and languages

27
Mobile Web vs. Rich Client

• Smart Device Extensions
• Target rich clients
• Pocket PC/Phone edition, Smartphones, Windows
  CE.NET
• Offline and Online
• Client side logic and data
• UI flexibility
• Client side installation
• Leverage SQL Server CE

• Mobile Web Applications
• Broad device support
• PocketPC, Palm, RIM, Cell phones
• Online
• Server side logic
• Browser-based UI
• No client installation

Built in support for XML Web Services
28
Demo
29
XML Web Services

• Integration between applications
• Integration between organizations
• Integration between heterogeneous systems

.NET Connected Application
30
XML Web Services Explained

• Internet connects entities together
• Email and WWW inherently cross boundaries
• XML Web Services applies the same platform
  neutral approach to system integration
• Platform Neutral
• Leverage Existing Standards
• No Rip and Replace

31
XML Web ServicesFoundation for Programmable
Internet

• Based on public standards
• XML, SOAP, XSD, WSDL
• Not bound to any single platform
• Protocol and format-based contract
• Loosely coupled programming
• Preserve and connect existing systems
• Broad industry support

32
XML Web Services
Language Independent

• J2EE App
• BEA Weblogic
• Oracle 8i
• Solaris
• Sun UE 10000

• SAP R/3
• DB2
• AIX
• IBM RS/6000

Platform Independent
Device Independent

• Motorola i85s
• J2ME

XML Web Services

• Compaq iPAQ
• Windows CE
• StrongARM

• PeopleSoft 7.0
• SQL 2000
• Windows 2000/.NET
• HP ProLiant

• PERL
• Apache 2.0
• MySQL
• Linux

33

• Promoters group for Web services
• Facilitate customer adoption
• Ensure interoperability
• Not a standards body
• Industry alignment around Web services
• First testing tools this year
• More info http//www.ws-i.org
• 100 member community

34
Microsoft .NET
Web services support across the Microsoft
platform
35
Analyst Perspective On .NET

• .NET is a brilliant strategy that enables
  Microsoft to define the next shift in the
  software business.
  Gartner Group

Everyone should build on the XML/SOAP
foundation. Meta Group Gartner believes
Microsoft is now providing more vision and
influence regarding this shift than any other
vendor. Gartner Group .NET is a leading
example of what we believe will be the dominant
architectural model for the third generation of
Internet applications. Patricia
Seybold Group
36
Demo
37
Pet Shop revisited Middleware App. Server Web
Services Benchmark

• MiddleWare Co. re-test of J2EE vs. .NET
  Per./Scale
• Spent 4 months testing J2EE and .NET reference
  applications
• Developed new J2EE application optimized for
  performance
• Conducted new series of comprehensive benchmarks
• All results taken by and certified by Middleware
  Company
• Includes Web Application, Web Services and
  Distributed Transaction benchmarks
• Report available at http//www.middleware-company.
  com/j2eedotnetbench
• Downloadable code, test scripts, discussion forum
  also available

38
Web Application BenchmarkTests n-tier Web
application hosting
Windows Server 2003 outperforms J2EE by 339 on
the Web application benchmark
39
Web Services BenchmarkWeb Service Hosting
PerformanceMultiple Clients Making Remote SOAP
Requests over HTTP
.NET Framework 1.1 on Windows Server 2003
outperforms J2EE by 331 in Web service testing
40
Developer Productivity Comparing .NET And J2EE
Implementations Based on new Middleware J2EE
Reference Application with EJBs and Equivalent
.NET Reference Application with C Components
Optimizing, configuring J2EE 10 man-weeks per
application server .NET  2 man-weeks
41
Agenda

• .NET Goals
• .NET Framework and Languages
• Application Types
• Case Study

42
computerjobs.com
43
computerjobs.com

• 15M hits per month
• 800k unique visitors
• 250k resumes

44
Criteria

• Speed
• Stability
• Productivity
• TCO

45
Criteria

• Speed
• 500 improvement in efficiency
• Stability
• Productivity
• TCO

46
Criteria

• Speed
• 500 improvement in efficiency
• Stability
• 99.998 uptime
• Productivity
• TCO

47
Criteria

• Speed
• 500 improvement in efficiency
• Stability
• 99.998 uptime
• Productivity
• Development time halved
• TCO

48
Criteria

• Speed
• 500 improvement in efficiency
• Stability
• 99.998 uptime
• Productivity
• Development time halved
• TCO
• 100,000 saved in first year

49
Q A ?