Rockford Lhotka's Blog

Home | Lhotka.net | CSLA .NET

 Friday, December 07, 2012

The Silverlight.net web site is apparently now gone, merged into the broader msdn.com ecosystem (where it belonged in the first place imo):

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-pulls-the-plug-on-its-silverlight-net-site-7000008494/

As we’ve known now for a long time, Silverlight is “dead”. It is in support mode and will be for a decade.

Just like Windows Forms has been since 2005, and WPF is now as well (do you really think Microsoft is going to divert money from WinRT to do anything with WPF at this point??? If so I’ve got this beachfront property for sale…).

As an aside, ASP.NET Web Forms also “died” in 2005, but recently got a major infusion of money in .NET 4.5 – showing that even a “dead” technology can receive a big cash investment sometimes – though it still isn’t clear that this will be enough to breath any new life into Web Forms for most organizations. I suspect it is more likely that this recent investment will just allow organizations with massive Web Forms sites to keep them limping along for another 5-10 years.

If a technology is defined as “dead” when its vendor stops enhancing it and starts maintaining it while they put most of their money into the future, then I must say that I’ve spent pretty much my entire ~25 year career working on dead technologies. And it has been fun! Smile

Although some of us tech geeks like to jump to the next potential upcoming thing, the people who actually fund software projects rarely want to accept that kind of risk. They generally prefer to build applications on stable technology. Most stable technology is “dead” or “dying” based on this idea of “live” technology being rapidly changing and evolving.

Obviously there’s a fine line here.

Target stable technology that is too old and you really are in trouble. Windows Forms is an example of this, because its underlying technology has no migration path to a WinRT future. Although a lot of organizations have massive investments in Windows Forms, I would hope that they’d shy away from starting new development on this extremely stable, but now too old, technology.

Target stable technology that is new, but old enough to be stable and life is generally pretty good. WPF and Silverlight (for smart clients, not for cross-platform RIA) are examples of this. The reason is that these technologies (especially Silverlight) have a good migration story to a WinRT future. A lot of organizations are investing in WPF, and that’s good. But I’d be shocked if Microsoft invests anything in WPF going forward – its future is the one Windows Forms has enjoyed since 2005 – stable maintenance of the technology. Perfect for building critical business apps. Organizations also have large investments in Silverlight, and as long as the intent was smart client development (not cross-platform RIA) it seems to me that they are in the exact same place as everyone using WPF. Arguably better, because Silverlight is much closer to WinRT than WPF.

http://magenic.com/Portfolio/WhitePaperWindows8DevelopmentPlatform.aspx

If you are using Silverlight for cross-platform rich web development, then I do agree that the news is not good. The current alternative appears to be HTML 5, though it is also clear that this is an expensive alternative with an unsure future. Just like every other silver bullet to write once and run anywhere, I think you have to go into such a venture expecting a lot of cost and pain. There’s no widely successful example in the history of computing that indicates otherwise…

The final option is to target “live” technologies. You know, the ones where vendors are dumping huge amounts of money, and where the technology and platform are changing rapidly. Things like HTML 5 and WinRT are examples of this. As a tech geek I love it when organizations want to do this sort of thing, because the challenge is high and we all get to learn a lot of new stuff. Of course the development costs are also quite high because we’re getting paid to learn this new stuff. And the overall costs for the software are high because the technology/platform isn’t stable and the app probably needs to be rewritten (in whole or part) every few months to deal with platform changes.

Some organizations are willing to accept the costs and inconvenience associated with using “live” technologies. But most organizations don’t have the time or money or risk tolerance, and are far better off targeting “dead” technologies like WPF and Silverlight. They just need to be careful to have strategic migration plans so they can get off those technologies before they reach the point of where Windows Forms is today.

Friday, December 07, 2012 11:23:33 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  | 
 Thursday, March 29, 2012

Here are the slides for my Windows Forms to Windows Runtime talk today at Dev Connections.

Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:39:13 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, November 06, 2009

In Visual Studio 2010 and .NET 4.0 Microsoft is amping up the visibility of the “client profile” concept. In fact, when you install the 4.0 client profile on a machine, it doesn’t drag the rest of the framework to that client later – they just get the client profile. And when you create a WPF or Windows Forms project in VS10 you default to targeting the client profile.

That’s all good – great in fact!!

But I’ve fallen in love with the validation attribute concepts in System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.dll. These attributes are designed specifically to enable a UI framework author (or a business layer framework author – like me with CSLA .NET) to automatically create a rich user experience based on the attributes decorating business objects.

This concept was first fully realized in Silverlight 3 – a client technology – and is now fully supported in .NET 4.0 full profile. But it is a client side technology, and so should be in the client profile.

I’ve logged this issue on connect, and recommend you vote for this to be resolved:

https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=502807

 

Friday, November 06, 2009 3:41:13 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Of course I’m referring to Windows Forms, which is about 8 years old. Even in dog years that’s not old. But in software years it is pretty old I’m afraid…

I’m writing this post because here and in other venues I’ve recently referred to Windows Forms as “legacy”, along with asmx and even possibly Web Forms. This has caused a certain amount of alarm, but I’m not here to apologize or mollify.

Technologies come and go. That’s just life in our industry. I was a DEC VAX guy for many years (I hear Ted Neward laughing now, he loves these stories), but I could see the end coming years before it faded away, so I switched to the woefully immature Windows platform (Windows 3.0 – what a step backward from the VAX!). I know many FoxPro people who transitioned, albeit painfully, to VB or other tools/languages. The same with Clipper/dBase/etc. Most PowerBuilder people transitioned to Java or .NET (though much to my surprise I recently learned that PowerBuilder still actually exists – like you can still buy it!!).

All through my career I’ve been lucky or observant enough to jump ship before any technology came down on my head. I switched to Windows before the VAX collapsed, and switched to .NET before VB6 collapsed, etc. And honestly I can’t think of a case where I didn’t feel like I was stepping back in time to use the “new technology” because it was so immature compared to the old stuff. But every single time it was worth the effort, because I avoided being trapped on a slowly fading platform/technology with my skills becoming less relevant every day.

But what is “legacy”? I once heard a consultant say “legacy is anything you’ve put in production”. Which might be good for a laugh, but isn’t terribly useful in any practical sense.

I think “legacy” refers to a technology or platform that is no longer an area of focus or investment by the creator/maintainer. In our world that mostly means Microsoft, and so the question is where is Microsoft focused, where are they spending their money and what are they enhancing?

The answers are pretty clear:

  • Azure
  • Silverlight
  • ASP.NET MVC
  • WPF (to a lesser degree)
  • ADO.NET EF
  • WCF

These are the areas where the research, development, marketing and general energy are all focused. Ask a Microsoft guy what’s cool or hot and you’ll hear about Azure or Silverlight, maybe ADO.NET EF or ASP.NET MVC and possibly WPF or WCF. But you won’t hear Windows Forms, Web Forms, asmx web services, Enterprise Services, Remoting, LINQ to SQL, DataSet/TableAdapter/DataTable or numerous other technologies.

Some of those other technologies aren’t legacy – they aren’t going away, they just aren’t sexy. Raw ADO.NET, for example. Nobody talks about that, but ADO.NET EF can’t exist without it, so it is safe. But in theory ADO.NET EF competes with the DataSet (poorly, but still) and so the DataSet is a strong candidate for the “legacy” label.

Silverlight and WPF both compete with Windows Forms. Poor Windows Forms is getting no love, no meaningful enhancements or new features. It is just there. At the same time, Silverlight gets a new release in less than 12 month cycles, and WPF gets all sorts of amazingly cool new features for Windows 7. You tell me whether Windows Forms is legacy. But whatever you decide, I’m surely spending zero cycles of my time on it.

asmx is obvious legacy too. Has been ever since WCF showed up, though WCF’s configuration issues have been a plague on its existence. I rather suspect .NET 4.0 will address those shortcomings though, making WCF as easy to use as asmx and driving the final nail in the asmx coffin.

Web Forms isn’t so clear to me. All the buzz is on ASP.NET MVC. That’s the technology all the cool kids are using, and it really is some nice technology – I like it as much as I’ll probably ever like a web technology. But if you look at .NET 4.0, Microsoft has done some really nice things in Web Forms. So while it isn’t getting the hype of MVC, it is still getting some very real love from the Microsoft development group that owns the technology. So I don’t think Web Forms is legacy now or in .NET 4.0, but beyond that it is hard to say. I strongly suspect the fate of Web Forms lies mostly in its user base and whether they fight for it, whether they make Microsoft believe it continues to be worth serious investment and improvement into the .NET 5.0 timeframe.

For my part, I can tell you that it is amazingly (impossibly?) time-consuming to be an expert on 7-9 different interface technologies (UI, service, workflow, etc). Sure CSLA .NET supports all of them, but there are increasing tensions between the stagnant technologies (most notably Windows Forms) and the vibrant technologies like Silverlight and WPF. It is no longer possible, for example, to create a collection object that works with all the interface technologies – you just can’t do it. And the time needed to deeply understand the different binding models and subtle differences grows with each release of .NET.

CSLA .NET 4.0 will absolutely still support all the interface technologies. But it would be foolish to cut off the future to protect the past – that way lies doom. So in CSLA .NET 4.0 you should expect to see support for Windows Forms still there, but probably moved into another namespace (Csla.Windows or something), while the main Csla namespace provides support for modern interface technologies like WPF, ASP.NET MVC, Silverlight, etc.

I am absolutely committed to providing a window of time where Windows Forms users can migrate their apps to WPF or Silverlight while still enjoying the value of CSLA .NET. And I really hope to make that reasonably smooth – ideally you’ll just have to change your base class types for your business objects when you switch the UI for the object from Windows Forms to XAML – though I suspect other minor tweaks may be necessary as well in some edge cases.

But let’s face it, at some point CSLA .NET does have to drop legacy technologies. I’m just one guy, and even with Magenic being such a great patron it isn’t realistic to support every technology ever invented for .NET :)  I don’t think the time to drop Windows Forms is in 4.0, because there are way too many people who need to migrate to WPF over the next 2-3 years.

On the other hand, if you and your organization aren’t developing a strategy to move off Windows Forms in the next few years I suspect you’ll eventually wake up one day and realize you are in a bad spot. One of those spots where you can’t hire anyone because no one else has done your technology for years, and nobody really remembers how it works (or at least won’t admit they do unless you offer them huge sums of money).

I don’t see this as bad. People who want stability shouldn’t be in computing. They should be in something like accounts receivable or accounts payable – parts of business that haven’t changed substantially for decades, or perhaps centuries.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:20:16 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, July 26, 2007

Every time I go to override the Text property in a Windows Forms UserControl I have to go find this one little attribute that I can never remember...

It is easy enough to remember to make the property Browsable(true), but it is that other attribute that's hard to remember: DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Visible).

This web page not only answers the question, but includes a nice summary of all the System.ComponentModel attributes. 

At least next time I know I can search my own blog to find the answer :)

Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:47:34 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
On this page....
Search
Archives
Feed your aggregator (RSS 2.0)
August, 2014 (2)
July, 2014 (3)
June, 2014 (4)
May, 2014 (2)
April, 2014 (6)
March, 2014 (4)
February, 2014 (4)
January, 2014 (2)
December, 2013 (3)
October, 2013 (3)
August, 2013 (5)
July, 2013 (2)
May, 2013 (3)
April, 2013 (2)
March, 2013 (3)
February, 2013 (7)
January, 2013 (4)
December, 2012 (3)
November, 2012 (3)
October, 2012 (7)
September, 2012 (1)
August, 2012 (4)
July, 2012 (3)
June, 2012 (5)
May, 2012 (4)
April, 2012 (6)
March, 2012 (10)
February, 2012 (2)
January, 2012 (2)
December, 2011 (4)
November, 2011 (6)
October, 2011 (14)
September, 2011 (5)
August, 2011 (3)
June, 2011 (2)
May, 2011 (1)
April, 2011 (3)
March, 2011 (6)
February, 2011 (3)
January, 2011 (6)
December, 2010 (3)
November, 2010 (8)
October, 2010 (6)
September, 2010 (6)
August, 2010 (7)
July, 2010 (8)
June, 2010 (6)
May, 2010 (8)
April, 2010 (13)
March, 2010 (7)
February, 2010 (5)
January, 2010 (9)
December, 2009 (6)
November, 2009 (8)
October, 2009 (11)
September, 2009 (5)
August, 2009 (5)
July, 2009 (10)
June, 2009 (5)
May, 2009 (7)
April, 2009 (7)
March, 2009 (11)
February, 2009 (6)
January, 2009 (9)
December, 2008 (5)
November, 2008 (4)
October, 2008 (7)
September, 2008 (8)
August, 2008 (11)
July, 2008 (11)
June, 2008 (10)
May, 2008 (6)
April, 2008 (8)
March, 2008 (9)
February, 2008 (6)
January, 2008 (6)
December, 2007 (6)
November, 2007 (9)
October, 2007 (7)
September, 2007 (5)
August, 2007 (8)
July, 2007 (6)
June, 2007 (8)
May, 2007 (7)
April, 2007 (9)
March, 2007 (8)
February, 2007 (5)
January, 2007 (9)
December, 2006 (4)
November, 2006 (3)
October, 2006 (4)
September, 2006 (9)
August, 2006 (4)
July, 2006 (9)
June, 2006 (4)
May, 2006 (10)
April, 2006 (4)
March, 2006 (11)
February, 2006 (3)
January, 2006 (13)
December, 2005 (6)
November, 2005 (7)
October, 2005 (4)
September, 2005 (9)
August, 2005 (6)
July, 2005 (7)
June, 2005 (5)
May, 2005 (4)
April, 2005 (7)
March, 2005 (16)
February, 2005 (17)
January, 2005 (17)
December, 2004 (13)
November, 2004 (7)
October, 2004 (14)
September, 2004 (11)
August, 2004 (7)
July, 2004 (3)
June, 2004 (6)
May, 2004 (3)
April, 2004 (2)
March, 2004 (1)
February, 2004 (5)
Categories
About

Powered by: newtelligence dasBlog 2.0.7226.0

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in any way.

© Copyright 2014, Marimer LLC

Send mail to the author(s) E-mail



Sign In