"Barry Kelly" <barry.j.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:

> the benefit of .NET is not "cross-platform interconnectivity"
> (cross-platform is more thought of as a Java thing),

"Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OiitOBGiHHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Barry Kelly" <barry.j.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [.NET's cross-platform interconnectivity]
>
>> the benefit of .NET is not "cross-platform interconnectivity"
>> (cross-platform is more thought of as a Java thing),
>
> I disagree - I think the .Net message here is the strongest of any
> platform current on the market.
>
> With Web Services, WSE 2 & 3, and now WCF, I think .Net has the stronges
> cross-platform interconnectivity of any development environment out there.
> The work Microsoft has done with Sun & IBM over at OASIS on these
> standards has been nothing short of remarkable - and WSE 3 and WCF
> implement many of them. As things sit now, we can flow transactions
> (WS-Transaction), share security contexts (WS-Security), encrypt and sign
> messages (XMLSig, XmlEnc WS-Security), transfer large chunks (MTOM), and a
> number of other things.
>
> We can easily pull data from an LDAP server running on any platform (via
> System.Directory Services), and pull data from just about any Data Source
> (via ADO.Net).
>
> Add in support for FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, SMTP, and Sockets, and I think the
> overall picture becomes very, very strong.
>
> I don't think even Sun's newest Java implementation (1.6?) has that strong
> of an "out-of-the-box" message for cross platofrm interconnectivity.
>
> Now, if you're thinking "can run cross platform", then you're (obviously)
> right. The .Net message with Mono isn't anywhere near as strong as the
> Java cross-platform message.
>

brazen wrote:

> We need to retrospectively justify our choice in using .NET framework for
> developing our site. Our techie isnt here so we cant run it past him. Can
> some kind, helpful person run their eye over it and tell me if I'm tellling
> porkies, or if there is anything I should add?

> With .NET's cross-platform
> interconnectivity, we feel that we have chosen the best approach for
> future-proofing.

On Apr 27, 3:35 am, "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We need to retrospectively justify our choice in using .NET framework for
> developing our site. Our techie isnt here so we cant run it past him. Can
> some kind, helpful person run their eye over it and tell me if I'm tellling
> porkies, or if there is anything I should add?
>
> Why should people choose .net (I think ours is 1.1)
>
> Thanks
>
> Gay
>
> ******************
> We recognised that in order to meet our aims of producing a high quality and
> consistent website, we had to ensure that our system was fast, robust and
> able to deal with a high number of users.
>
> We chose .NET framework so that we could meet these needs now, but also so
> that we could best account for any future developments in a cost effective
> manner. This has proved the case, in that with our Stage 2 developments we
> will be implementing a forum system. Using .NET has meant that we can
> integrate new modules with ease. With .NET's cross-platform
> interconnectivity, we feel that we have chosen the best approach for
> future-proofing.

"Sachin Palewar" <palewar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177661796.804067.44150@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Using .NET framework is a broad term. You can use it, but I think you
> should also mention that you will be using ASP.NET for website as that
> will the precise technology you will be using. And if your technical
> team approves you can even mention that you will be using AJAX (http://
> ajax.asp.net/) for development.
>
> Also you can check out http://asp.net/ for more info about asp.net and
> also if you are interested to get some ideas from casestudies, then
> you can check out - http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/
>