![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| | |||||||
| | Vista - COM+ / NET Components |
| |
| 07-30-2009 | #1 |
| | COM+ / NET Components Hi, I need to create some .Net components to run in COM+ and works with ASP.NET Pages, mostly because of security (the client demand that the web application have to be separated of the bussiness tie, for many reasons beside security, like scabillity). I made a lot of tests, and nothing seems to work. I just wanna create an DLL in .NET (in VB.Net), register in the COM+ of the application server , export a package to the IIS server and call it in ASP.NET Pages using the CreateObject command. I know that seems different of the porpouse of .NET, but it's work. If I have some MS documentation that explain "this is a bad idea", it will help me a lot too. I will not use any early techonologiem like VB6 components. I'm using Framework 3.5, with VB.Net and ASP.Net. There's some VB dlls calling each other (also with Create Object) and the ASp.Net WebSite, in a Different server. What's the best pratice to do this? Thanx in Advance ! -- ------ []'s Lula |
| My System Specs |
| 07-30-2009 | #2 |
| | Re: COM+ / NET Components "Lula.Pro" <nah@xxxxxx> wrote in news:F11A7B14-A315-4EFC-941B-08C7E78BDF7A@xxxxxx: Quote: > Hi, > > I need to create some .Net components to run in COM+ and works with > ASP.NET Pages, mostly because of security (the client demand that the > web application have to be separated of the bussiness tie, for many > reasons beside security, like scabillity). I made a lot of tests, and > nothing seems to work. I just wanna create an DLL in .NET (in VB.Net), > register in the COM+ of the application server , export a package to > the IIS server and call it in ASP.NET Pages using the CreateObject > command. I know that seems different of the porpouse of .NET, but it's > work. If I have some MS documentation that explain "this is a bad > idea", it will help me a lot too. a separate application server, there are other ways to solve the boundary problem than mixing COM and .NET. And, I would argue, more superior ways to do it. If you look at Juval Lowy's work, the idea of setting up a WCF service over the libraries works very nicely for this type of separation. And, you incur less overhead than your proposed solution, which is: ASP.NET calls COM+ calls distributed system using COM+ calls your .NET assembly on the other machine calls interop to native methods etc. At least with the WCF service approach, you end up with this: ASP.NET calls WCF business tier component WCF calls local .NET componet (all .NET) ..NET calls interop where needed for native methods Your overhead, via latency, is pretty much equivalent, but the interop back and forth eats up cycles, thus destroying part of the scalability you achieve from putting the business tier on another machine. If you MUST head this direction, something like .NET Reactor may be a better option for creating true native code from .NET. LSW was also looking into native with their Lab product and I think remote soft has something along these lines in their product (although I still do not think it is truly native code). I would still advise against this, as you can set up the security and scalability in true .NET without jumping through this hoop. -- Gregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA Twitter: @gbworld Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com ******************************************* | Think outside the box! | ******************************************* |
| My System Specs |
| 07-30-2009 | #3 |
| | Re: COM+ / NET Components Hi Gregory ! Thank you for help! Quote: > If you look at Juval Lowy's work, the idea of setting up a WCF service > over > the libraries works very nicely for this type of separation. WCF service can be exported or called from another machine. I don't know WCF so much, but the ideia seems great. If the service works under a validation of users (like COM+, to start / stop processes), this is just what I need. Quote: > If you MUST head this direction, something like .NET Reactor may be a > better option for creating true native code from .NET. curiosity, cause i will follow the WCF Service idea (If my client aprove it) .. I searched about .Net Reactor, and don't really understand how it works. Thanx again for yout time and patience! -- ------ []'s Lula "Gregory A. Beamer" <NoSpamMgbworld@xxxxxx> escreveu na notícia da mensagem:Xns9C58875E6D8F7gbworld@xxxxxx Quote: > You don't have to go through this for true separation of tiers. If you > want > a separate application server, there are other ways to solve the boundary > problem than mixing COM and .NET. And, I would argue, more superior ways > to > do it. > > If you look at Juval Lowy's work, the idea of setting up a WCF service > over > the libraries works very nicely for this type of separation. And, you > incur > less overhead than your proposed solution, which is: > > ASP.NET > calls COM+ > calls distributed system using COM+ > calls your .NET assembly on the other machine > calls interop to native methods > etc. > > At least with the WCF service approach, you end up with this: > > ASP.NET calls WCF business tier component > WCF calls local .NET componet (all .NET) > .NET calls interop where needed for native methods > > Your overhead, via latency, is pretty much equivalent, but the interop > back > and forth eats up cycles, thus destroying part of the scalability you > achieve from putting the business tier on another machine. > > If you MUST head this direction, something like .NET Reactor may be a > better option for creating true native code from .NET. LSW was also > looking > into native with their Lab product and I think remote soft has something > along these lines in their product (although I still do not think it is > truly native code). I would still advise against this, as you can set up > the security and scalability in true .NET without jumping through this > hoop. > > -- > Gregory A. Beamer > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA > > Twitter: @gbworld > Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com > > ******************************************* > | Think outside the box! | > ******************************************* |
| My System Specs |
| 08-07-2009 | #4 |
| | Re: COM+ / NET Components "Lula.Pro" <nah@xxxxxx> wrote in news:35929813-180F-46D8-9F1C-6B2810D84072@xxxxxx: Quote: > But It's possible to created the web site application as i told ? Just > for curiosity, cause i will follow the WCF Service idea (If my client > aprove it) . I searched about .Net Reactor, and don't really > understand how it works. overhead to do all of the interop necessary, so I would not do it. -- Gregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA Twitter: @gbworld Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com ******************************************* | Think outside the box! | ******************************************* |
| My System Specs |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
| Similar Threads for: COM+ / NET Components | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hkey_local_machine\components | Vista General | |||
| add/remove components | Vista General | |||
| Do I need these Windows components? | Vista General | |||
| What are Serviceable Components? | Vista installation & setup | |||
| Can't add Windows Components | Vista installation & setup | |||