When to pick ASP.Net, when to pick desktop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom c
  • Start date Start date
T

tom c

What are the reasons you would decide to do a dot net app in the
Windows desk top mode, rather than in ASP.Net? I am being asked to
make a recomendation and I can not think of any reason to go with desk
top, even for something that is only going to run on one desk top
computer at a time.

My thinking is that with Win XP you can always use IIS and run the app
on your desktop. If you ever need to migrate to a web app it will be
so much easier if you start out with ASP.Net, and in dot net it doesn't
take any longer to develop in ASP.Net.

So those are my thoughts but I am not an experience dot net developer,
so tell me what I am missing.
 
tom said:
What are the reasons you would decide to do a dot net app in the
Windows desk top mode, rather than in ASP.Net? I am being asked to
make a recomendation and I can not think of any reason to go with desk
top, even for something that is only going to run on one desk top
computer at a time.
Click to expand...

Even if you're going to run it on one desktop at a time, keeping the
application on a server gives it flexibility and a more centralized form
of management. Also you don't have to account for local issues with your
application, just server/client stuff.

So those are my thoughts but I am not an experience dot net developer,
so tell me what I am missing.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I'm also fairly new to ASP.NET, but I'm not new as a
web developer. So take my comments for what they're worth.
 
ASP.NET applications will offer greater management when it comes to updating
and scaling the application.

Client (desktop mode as you put it) applications may offer better
performance.

It is unrealistic to expect that clients will have IIS installed (it's not
even available in XP Home, only XP Pro and even there it is not installed by
default) and even if it is, it is not really the best way to run a client
application in the first place.
 
Building rich ASP.Net client is often more complex than building rich Win
apps.
Do not forget that a windows app should act as a client of a web service, or
a wcf service (if you use .Net 3.0).

If you build your application in a SOA fashion, you can even have a full
rich windows APP that is a client of a service somewhere on a server, or a
"less" rich web application for users that does not have the windows app
installed.

Concerning the managability, a lot of developpers say a windows app is a bit
more difficult to maintain because of deployment scenario. They are right,
but some home made updater or clickonce technologies can override this
limitation... you can ensure the client app is running the correct version.

Finally, the scalability is easier to raise with a windows app if it uses
the disconnect mode (using local cache - datasets - to work and send updates
to the server when it is finished), in opposition to a web application that
will continously serve pages to users (that should ponderated snce, ASP.net
can serve a huge number of pages on small servers...)...

To resume, you have to deal with the pro and cons of each technologies...
there is not yet an "ultimate" way to do your app.

Steve
 
If you design the majority of your funcationality in libraries, you can
easily switch UIs. This, of course, is not the architecture you generally
see out there.

In most cases, I stick to web, unless I have control of the machines that
are running the applications (on the Intranet) or I have a need for smart
client features. Disconnected apps tend to be smart client or windows
mobile. But, as more machines are hooked up and dialed in, this is not a
hard, fast rule.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

*************************************************
Think outside of the box!
*************************************************
 
Thank you all for your very useful thoughts. I have learned a lot
here. Please post any additional thoughts you have.
 
Back
Top