Discussions

1 hour ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

False dichotomy. You have an HTML5 based app that can make native calls as long as it is not running in the browser's security context. People have been making mobile apps in this manner with frameworks like PhoneGap for years.

Even Microsoft has been a huge proponent of this, and they have something called WinRT in the latest version of Windows that basically does that..

the question was and is about a desktop app, not a phone app, not a mobile app, not a tablet app.

if I were looking at a mobile / phone / tablet app that would be a different thing.

possibly you could tell us what that means "EMET"  ?

Early Microsoft Engine Trainer ?

37 minutes ago, fanbaby wrote

*snip*

I say do what you will, but choosing XAML over HTML/CSS is stupid. IE10+ shows clearly that HTML is more then a viable alternative to XAML.

so forget about xaml for now and please explain why a desktop applications that has no need for a web server should be using a web browser to present the UI of the app.

as far as I can see the real world benefits are very limited in that case.

I am not saying that you can't do it or that html is bad.

I am asking for facts on why having an application open a browser and depend on that html rendering engine to do the UI of the app is better than something else?

for example if I create a UI with Windows Forms or WIn32  it will be a native UI with full access to the OS  and the native Windowing system. it will also not be dependent on what browser is installed on the pc and to what happens if the browser is not there etc...

also let's talk about the issues of writing an application and how it will have to bridge to the browser runtime and exchange data with it. I can see a number of cases where the security of the data exchange may be an issue - for example in a medical facility with HIPPA compliance rules and so on ....

please explain ?

18 minutes ago, bondsbw wrote

As much as I'd like to see a replacement for XAML, I'd give a first priority to replacing HTML/JS.  It saddens me that HTML is being embraced even more today.  And the languages that have been built to replace JavaScript are really more about extending it, not about fixing its inherent flaws.

well we seem to have this thing about wanting one way to do everything ... at least a bunch of folks do. it's a bad idea but it's a common one, I think at one time a lot of management in companies got on the idea of doing everything as a web page so that the corp. it staff and budget could be stream lined, they did not want to have to deploy apps and thought that web page apps were all the future.

in some cases they are very good but the "one size fits all" should not be carried to the point of not seeing that some apps might be done better as "real" apps.

html was created to serve up formatted documents with links to other documents.

we have added on all manner of stuff on top of that and try to make it work as an application server.

for the most part it works but it was never designed for this role and has areas where it shows.

no matter the details we should use the right tools for the job, not try and make a hammer into a wrench or a screw driver into a pry bar.

use html where it's a good fit, use other tools for other things.

44 minutes ago, fanbaby wrote

If you believe that XAML has the potential to win more then a fraction of developer mindshare, vs HTML that is, then good luck to you. And pity your clients. A typical Microsoft Ghetto  technology, even the mono guys shun it.

HTML, the only thing Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Adobe etc agree on.

He's joined Silverlight, Jim

are you then saying that an application that run on a desktop machine should use HTML markup to draw the UI ?

that is the item we have been talking about.

just want to see if we are clear on that.

23 hours ago, bondsbw wrote

Honestly, I wish it would.

Hear me out.  I program almost exclusively in WPF, but one of the big drawbacks is XAML.  It was part of Microsoft's, frankly, silly attempt to use XML everywhere.  Now, that XML gets in the way everywhere.

A varienty of improvements can be had:

• I would much rather have a succinct syntax like QML.  
• The UI code needs to be compile-time checked as much as possible.  Data bindings would seriously improve.  And there are too many instances where I have to run through my entire application debugging it just to find out I mistyped a resource reference.
• For that matter, get rid of BAML.  Compile directly to IL and skip most of the runtime interpretation aspect.
• And for now this is last but certainly not least: ICommand.  We need something better.

well what about this :  WInforms or Xaml ?

to me I think that xaml did solve a number of things that were not good about how windows forms tried to save the UI in code.   so while not perfect I think xaml was a big step in the right direction.

19 minutes ago, sqlerror wrote

Anyone know how?

I can do it using SqlXml datatype without problems like so:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SqlXml sx = new SqlXml(xnr);                         insertCommand.CommandText = string.Format("INSERT INTO {0} (JIDFilename, JurisdictionName, JurXml) values('{1}', '{2}', @XmlContent)", table, cfgFile,                                                               jurName);                         insertCommand.Parameters.Add("@XmlContent", SqlDbType.Xml);                         insertCommand.Parameters["@XmlContent"].Value = sx;                           int rowsAffected = insertCommand.ExecuteNonQuery();

 

Doing it with LINQ isn't working for me however.

can you post an example of the kind of linq statement you are trying ?

I do some stuff but I generally have the linq to sql or linq to ef using string on the c# side

but the string is an xml doc.

example case:

I have an app that needs to connect to a set of services and a database.

the users will run the app all day long.

what will that cost over  a year ?

right now I have a sql server and a web server doing this and we know what that costs per month for the data center, we own the hardware.

1 hour ago, Jsoh wrote

How about something on billing?

-Josh

yeah real world costs of running services on the cloud.

2 hours ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

*snip*

That issue is at the bottom of the list.

2002 called, the freetards want their argument back.

That's why I call 2010s Microsoft "NuMicrosoft". It's a blend of Apple's arrogance with the attitude of the FOSS community at their worst times.

Nothing against you personally, but I see tons of "defense" for the newish MS products that could have been written by a Linux aficionado back in the days.

"My 8 year old and my 118 year old grandmother have no problems using Ubuntu/W8!"

"Windows Phone/Linux is new! Just give it time and it will stomp out all competition!"

"You're just too stupid to learn Windows 8/GNOME!"

"Adapt or die! Linux/Metro is da future!"

"At least no one hacked us".

wow ... you and Mr. Death are really to much...  I was not saying who is better or anything about what I think , just a point that is valid ....  

so you read something into my post that was not there and totally fail.

the worst security problem I know of was on the sony network  in 2011 if you need a hint....