I know that It doensn't work.
But It's so late to develop another project.
I just want to know how to excute it on Windows 8 and IE 11
whether direct way or indirect way. It's OK.
I'm almost crazy 'cause of this problem.
for a long time I coudn't find any information on searching.
Microsoft said ..
IEHost.dll is the runtime host that provides the ability to host
Windows Forms controls and run executables in IE. IEHost is a .Net 1.1
technology that provided a better model than ActiveX to host controls
within the browser since they were lightweight and the controls
operated under the .NET security model, where they operated inside a
sandbox.
For Dev10, the proposal is to remove IEHost.dll for the following
reasons
IEHost/HREF-EXEs are surface area exposed to the Internet. This poses a high security risk (we already have bugs filed related to
this), and most customers (by far) who install the Framework are
getting very little value for this security risk. If IEHost and IEExec
is left as-is, a new model needs to be designed where either (a) using
this technology is safe and is always on, or (b) is as secure as today
and can be configured to be turned off. The cost of doing this is very
high.
Customers who want IEHost/HREF-EXE-sytle controls or apps have numerous other technologies they can use, like ClickOnce, XBAP,
Silverlight.
Customers who want the exact same functionality as 3.5 SP1 for this feature can continue to use 3.5 SP1. This change, of removing
IEHost takes effect only in .Net Framework 4.0.
The opportunity cost and risk of continuing to support this feature for the CLR team is high. Going forward, we will be able to
deliver more features and bug fixes that benefit more of our customers
if we can remove this from NetFx4.
I know that your clients won't wait for a full re-write of your website, the show must continue right?, then for now follow these steps to make it work:
Basic steps used in previous versions
In IE add your site to TrustedSites.
Use Caspol.exe to grant full trust to your site.
New steps to use with .Net Framework 4 and IE 11
Re-enable IE host support for IE (Review this post)
Optional: If your site needs to run in compatibility mode add it to "Compatibility View Settings" (Review this post).
Something important to note:
This behavior will be the same in any version of Window/IE if you have .Net Framework 4+ installed. i.e. If you have your site running in IE 8/9 and then you install .Net Framework 4 your embedded winforms won't be loaded, you will need to follow the new steps below.
However I completely agree with #HighCore, you must get rid of it, it is a time bomb.
Related
When I create new Windows Phone project I have an option to create a "Windows Phone" or "Windows Phone Silverlight" app. I know that they have different runtimes and different APIs.
I was under the impression that Microsoft wants to unify Windows and Windows Phone platforms so why is there even a Silverlight version? What benefits does it bring?
Also, if I want to create an app just for Windows Phone and never have plans to bring it to Windows, what should I choose, Silverlight or Windows Phone?
I'd suggest you go with "Windows Phone" (non-Silverlight). It's the new API, which works for both Windows and Windows Phone. At some point you may want to port the app or create a new one for Windows and you'll already know the API (and porting will be way easier). Also, the new API will most likely get more updates and features added, and at some point you may even be forced to update to it (either because the old one is no longer supported, or because it does not have some features that you need).
As it was said in the other answers - the Silverlight option is there only for backward compatibility and is likely to be phased out in time. That is - it's good if you already know the API and have many libraries (yours or others) for WP Silverlight, but if you're just starting - you'd better go for the new technology.
Edit
There is one other thing to consider before choosing between the two types of apps. Some features are only available in a Silverlight app, and others (smaller amount) - only in a Xaml app. Here's an article with some info on the differences: Migrating your Windows Phone 8 app to a Windows Runtime XAML app
Windows RT Xaml is quite new and People have to generate some knowledge first.
Silverlight for phone has been around for years and there's a load of tools available: Phone Toolkit, diverse Controls, etc.
Just killing it off would have hurt many developers who built up intellectual property over a long time forcing them to start over.
When starting a project with Silverlight you will have more things around that help you get stuff done.
When starting with WinRT Xaml, you will have better performance, but will have to figure a lot out by yourself.
So the Silverlight option is there to not throw of Silverlight developers.
I recently started a new project on WinRT Xaml and my experience was that I had to recreate a lot of common tools like Caches, etc. But also a lot of things that were in Toolkits previously are now part of the platform itself. Also, when moving over to Windows 8, you get to share a lot of code which is nice.
Unifying the environment(s) would be ideal. In my opinion, it hasn't been very successful. At one point in time, you could only develop under Silverlight, so what you are seeing is just a newer version of the same thing to keep backwards compatibility as well as to keep Silverlight's developers happy. In the future, it will probably be phased out. Plus if you want to support older Phones, Silverlight is basically your only choice (you'll be surprise, how many WP users haven't updated their 8.0 to 8.1)
There really isn't any other real benefit of Silverlight other than maybe the Windows Phone Toolkit which has been tremendously useful (you can see how many SO's answers rely on this simple addon). Once the universal runtime gets fleshed out to the point where the documentation reflects what's actually available -- then I think it would be the default project for developing in Windows going forward.
If you're just starting, I would use Silverlight the knowledge based is much greater. After you get use to the WP environment then switch to runtime.
Today, while I'm running a Silverlight project in the Internet Explorer by pressing F5 in Visual Studio 2012 in my Windows 8 machine, I found that McAfee started to block Silverlight XAPs (Which is loaded by Prism).
This leads me to think again about the future of Silverlight. I'm at the beginning of my LOB Application. Should I stop what I like to work in Silverlight and return back to WPF. I which that I can continue to develop in Silverlight until Windows 8 becomes rich like Silverlight. That is why I limit the Model and MVVM to PCL to be easier to be ported to WinRT in the future. Using await async and so...
Please advise me which is better for a LOB application that will run in three countries throw the Internet. Should I continue in Silverlight for zero deployment, or work in WPF or even Windows Forms and use clickonce?
The fact that McAffee blocked something has NOTHING to do with it's long term future. McAfee is nobody, they don't determine whether or not a specific technology can be used or not, or will be used in the future.
Silverlight seems to have reached a dead end, due to Microsoft realizing that if they create a multi-platform application environment, people might just stop using Windows.
WPF also seems to have been abandoned in favor or WinRT XAML, but of course WinRT XAML is not an option for us developers at the moment, simply because it is Windows 8-only, and our customers don't have Windows 8 or greater.
Besides, technically, WinRT-XAML seems to be really inferior to WPF XAML, and lacks many important features.
Of course winforms is completely useless and is not an option, unless you need to run your applications in my grandma's 80386 computer with an Hercules monochrome monitor
(exaggeration).
Seriously, that dead technology is not the answer to any of today's challenges. Things that you can do easily in any of the XAML-based technologies are either impossible or require a bunch of horrible hacks in winforms.
I suppose the definitive answer depends a lot on the usage scenario, for example:
Silverlight makes more sense if you have to publish your application in a web site and have anyone download it and use it.
WinRT XAML makes sense only if you target Windows 8, or want to create 'metro style' apps.
WPF makes sense if you want to create Windows Desktop applications, and have them deployed via ClickOnce or Windows Installer to a more limited and controlled set of users (because it needs installation of the .Net Framework, which Click-Once can deal with anyways).
winforms makes no sense whatsoever because it's a completely useless dinosaur technology that doesn't support anything.
Thank you very much for your answer and sharing your experience with me. I always try keeping WinRT as a strategy planning for each line of code I write. As I wish to migrate my code easily to WinRT in the future. The future is translated to me as may be within two years I may find myself in a situation that we will be targeted to migrate to something like Windows 9.
The best successful migration scenario - as I wish, it could be by increasing the usage of PCL at the client side as much as possible and test in a small piece of WinRT module.
We hope that Microsoft succeed in Windows 9.
I am sadly decided to shift to WPF instead of Silverlight in case that Silverlight depends on browsers that may not be supported in the future. As we here that Chrome, Safari and others are stopping supporting Silverlight. Why should I insist in relaying with such great technology that is dead before it finishes.
The main difficulties I could face in the future migration could be tied to two patterns:
- Prism.Regions: Windows Store has better than that.
- Prism.Modularity: Windows Store has no migration strategy to that.
At least at the moment I'm writing my thoughts Prism for Windows Store are far from implementing Regions and Modularity.
This is not a final answer but a clue of my what I should and should not to do.
Looking for opinions. I'm working on a mid-sized 3-tier ASP.NET project (.NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005) with an Oracle on Unix back-end, some beefy MS web servers, and IE browser clients. Performance is pretty bad, and users feel the UI looks outdated as well. We may have an opportunity soon to redesign and rewrite the entire application from the ground up, and I'm wondering what the current or recommended MS platform is.
I was involved with WPF and Silverlight on a different contract when MS downgraded support for Silverlight in favor of "HTML5" for Windows 8 and Windows Phone a few years back. I'm not trying to start a flame war between how long Silverlight or even WPF will be around, but I'm looking for some modern alternatives as of today, April 2013. The one requirement we can't get around is that we can't install something on each and every user PC throughout the client organization.
My own background is in WinForms and C# more so than any of the above, but everywhere I turn it seems developing any new LOB apps in WinForms isn't done much anymore.
Whatever happened to the Application Server platform and apps run thru Remote Desktop? Does it still make sense to develop desktop apps and deploy to app servers and just put a shortcut on each user's desktop, or even map a drive letter like we used to do back in the day?
Your $0.02 would be appreciated!
I would definitely consider doing it as an internal web site.
The UI would be HTML5 using the "single page application" (SPA) for each function you need. Each function would be on a page that is loaded when the user needs it. The javascript/ajax code in the browser would interact with the web server which feeds back the raw data needed to be displayed.
Using Active Directory, you can have full security and customization per person.
If you need lots of interactivity, then you'd also want to consider including SignalR in the mix. (That is one of the "new" MS tools!)
If you can't install anything in the end users' PCs then go ASP.Net. Anything else will require installation.
You can make a web application more appealing to the users by having a good designer and a LOT of javascript. Not remotely comparable to the power and beauty of WPF, but that's your best bet.
WPF is part of the .Net framework and will not run without it installed.
Silverlight could also be an option, but it still requires an installation (although minimal, 4 MB, less-than-2 minute install), but an install anyways.
WinRT only works in Windows 8. It's not supported in lower versions (Vista, XP, 7). So I don't think it's an option as of now (unless all your users have Windows 8, of course).
And no, winforms is not an option. It's also part of the .Net framework, and even if you could get it installed, it doesn't make any sense having to deal with the limitations of it, having many much much better technologies at your disposal.
I'm considering switching from MFC to WPF.
My first concern is that there are too many users who don't have .NET with WPF installed yet. Can anybody point to a source containing the WPF penetration numbers?
My second concern is speed.
Any other considerations?
I've been banging away at WPF for a while now. It is brilliant, but it still has (occasional) holes you've to plug yourself. However all indications are .NET 4.0 will be a significant step forward.
I would say start now. The WPF learning curve is REALLY steep, and it'll be a while before you'll be releasing software to users, believe me. Also do yourself a favour and get the WPF Unleashed book. It's superior.
Speed isn't a consideration. The power WPF gives is well worth any drawbacks with speed, which - coming from Windows Forms - I haven't noticed to be honest.
What kind of application are you developing? If it's a wide-distribution desktop app that you want your grandmother to install, your concern about .NET 3.0/3.5 adoption is valid. So far from what I've seen, performance is less of a concern.
WPF penetration
First of all, Windows Vista and Windows 7 both have WPF preinstalled, which accounts for 35% of the market automatically. Windows XP has had it as it had .NET Framework 3.0 as an option in Windows Update for over three years, and many applications ship with it, so it is likely to also be installed on a high percentage of Windows XP machines. StatOwl indicates that about 80% of NET Framework installations are version 3 or above.
If you're shipping on CD it is no big deal to include the latest .NET Framework on the CD and have it install automatically. If users are downloading your application, it can contact Microsoft's web server to download and install the latest .NET Framework. Online ClickOnce deployment also has this capability if you want people to be able to start their application directly from the web browser without installing it.
So the bottom line is, you probably don't need to worry about whether people will have WPF installed on their machines or not unless your target market consists primarily of dial up customers on Windows XP who don't run much third-party software (i.e., they just run Windows and your application).
Speed
Not an issue. I have a 200 MHz Pentium Pro with 384 MB RAM from 1998 that I test my software on, and my WPF applications have comparable performance with equivalent MFC applications. If your WPF application uses lots of fancy graphics and animation it will run slowly on ancient CPUs and graphics cards, but so would an ordinary MFC application with the same features.
Don't even bother trying to use WPF if you are sticking with Visual Studio 2008 for the next year or two. The experience will be way too painful. I'm talking about "my IDE crashed again" type of pain.
If you are going to use VS 2010 in the near future, then WPF is a blast. Download the beta, a couple of themes off CodePlex, are start playing. Once you get past the (freaking huge) learning curve I think you will find it to be quite enjoyable.
IMHO, you should wait for Visual Studio 2010 and WPF 4.0 to make the actual migration. They will close some very annoying gaps in the product.
Meanwhile, you can try it out. In terms of coding/readability -- it's going to be WAAAY better than with MFC =)
As for the performance and platform -- it shouldn't be a problem unless you have any very special circumstances (like if you can't require users to install .NET).
Also see this related question on switching to WPF from Windows Forms.
If you are thinking about a larger, modular, appliation I recommend checking out Prism. It's a bit of a beast itself, but you should be able to tackle it after coming to grips with C#, Dependency Properties and XAML. Plus, learning Prism gave me a much better understanding of WPF/Silverlight, at least from the development/binding side.
Mike Taulty posted an excellent 10 part video series on Prism. It's a great way to get your head around the platform.
I'd also recommend the pages linked to from the Getting Started page on codeplex. After all that, you're probably ready to tackle the Reference Implementation which comes with the download.
A previous answer of mine might also help clear up any remaining confusion around Controllers/Presenters in the framework that you might have (I did).
Silverlight Out of Browser technology and WPF ClickOnce on the surface have similarities. Easy and simple deployment, the ability to specify the level of trust access to the underlying host, etc.
What are the key issues I need to consider when choosing one over the other?
To put a finer point on it, I'll be deploying LOB apps on a corporate network running only windows computers.
The big one is cross platform compatibility. If you need you app to run on a mac as well as windows (not sure if Silverlight is supported in Linux yet) then use Silverligt. If you want to make an assumption that all your users will be in a windows machine then go WPF.
Obviously WPF has a much richer toolkit than silverlight so it may well be that silverlight just isn't an option. If I was just building for windows though I know my job would be easier in WPF.
Given that you are targetting a private infrastructure running Windows, two points worth thinking about
Wpf has a richer control tree, whereas Silverlight is a reduced set for compact size
Wpf requires .Net framework installed locally, whereas Silverlight has its own platform independent browser-based runtime
While your target platform will likely have the latest .Net framework installed, rendering this last point moot, keep in mind any updates to the framework [ie .Net4.0 and any future updates] may require a restart of the machine - which is a major pain point for businesses that demand constant-on stateful desktops [ie anything in finance, like banks and trading].
As with all problems, your requirements, not the technology, should inform your solution. :)
You mentioned trust access to the host which I think rules out Silverlight unless you want to run SL4 (beta).
We recently went through a lot of discussion about file system access. Silverlight 3 runs in a partial trust sandbox more or less. You can't maintain a pointer to files in the files system outside of your application's isolated storage. This was an issue for us as we wanted the user to be able to use the application to reference odds and ends on your file system. That said you can allow the users to load and save files from anywhere on the system but you just get/or push the file stream and (to the best of my knowledge) don't have access to the folder or file path information.
Silverlight 4 (in beta) has support for your application running in full trust mode. I haven't played with this yet however and can't speak to how well it works.
In talking with a lot of people who work with both Silverlight and WPF, even those who are excited about Silverlight and push for it strongly, I hear a lot of the say fairly emphatically that if you are going to be developing exclusively for a full-trust Windows environment, WPF is hands-down the obvious choice.
That's not to say that Silverlight is an inferior product or that there aren't times will Silverlight will be the clear winner. But when you say "I'll be deploying LOB apps on a corporate network running only windows computers," it sounds like WPF is the clear winnder.
You could decide to go down the Silverlight route in anticipation of all of the great new OOB feature os SL4. I've even heard rumors that SL and WPF will eventually merge, so it may not even really matter, right? Well, I think what you'll find if you go with Silverlight is that some of the advanced features that you thought were there weren't there in the way you expected. For example, SL4 will be able to run in "Elevated Trust" (not full trust) and you might find this limiting at a frustrating point in the project where a lot of your code base is already in Silverlight.
Certainly keep your eyes on Silverlight, but for your current business case, WPF will likely be the best fit.