| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
.Net application ports: Speed or grace? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:07 EST/14:07 GMT | News Source: Builder.com | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
I want to tell you about a project that was simple at first glance. Initially, it looked like things would be fairly straightforward: Port a Web application over to ASP.Net and its Windows CE client application over to the Compact Framework. But as things turned out, it wasn't that easy. The particulars of the applications and the politics of the environment we were working under conspired to make us choose between a graceful solution that ran like a dog, and a relatively ugly but much better-performing solution. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 294 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:24:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (66.19.67.36) at 3/27/2003 11:38:09 AM |
|
A few comments...
As far as I can tell, the primary bottleneck for their application was the use of web services for some kind of data transfer between central servers and mobile devices. It appears that all their mobile devices were running some version of Windows CE / .NET Compact Framework. If this factor is constant, and there is no foreseeable need to support different client platforms, they should have used the much, much faster TCP Remoting instead of the slow Web Services. TCP Remoting uses a compressed binary protocol over TCP, and would likely be just as fast as their old custom protocol, but would have saved them the trouble of having to rewrite the old protocol in ASP.NET. The only limitation of remoting is that, as of right now, it's only easily implementing on .NET-only solutions. Web Services are great when you need a loosely coupled, platform independent solution. If, for instance, your clients were both Java and Windows based PDAs or cell phones, then Web Services are a good bet. Or, if you need to be able to expose the services from a variety of server platforms, then web services are a good bet. It seems to me that it was a lack of knowledge, not a problem with the technology, which caused the poor performance in their application. Their second problem had something to do with managing large numbers of objects. This is so vague, it could mean anything. As a general rule, managed frameworks like .NET are typically *better* at managing large numbers of objects because of the highly refined memory management routines. In addition, object creation in .NET is also typically faster than unmanaged runtimes. At any rate, it's impossible to draw any conclusions from an article like this. You would figure a site like builder.com would include a few details. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 294 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:24:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
