.NET Framework - I'll buy you a latte....

Asked By jim

16-Sep-07 07:28 AM

...or the beverage of your choice at your local Starbucks if you can help me
find a working code sample in VB.Net 2005 that shows a webpage hosting a
webbrowser activex control.

OK....it *is* a crazy request.....so make that 2 of your favorite beverages.
One for you and one for a friend.

jim

16-Sep-07 07:37 AM

I dont have any freinds because Im a recluse, and I only drink tap water.


I have done this before, so I know its possible, but I dont have a sample to
share unfortunately.

16-Sep-07 07:53 AM

Did you try googling for

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22webbrowser+activex+control%22+%22asp.net%22

???

The first link returned is :
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311294




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 09:36 AM

Goggled til I turned blue.....

The first link returned has nothing to do with hosting a webbrowser activex
control in a webpage.  It is about hosting a webbrowser control (different
from a webbrowser activex control now that there is a crippled webbrowser
control included in the .Net toolbox) and using it to post to a webpage.

Thanks though.....

16-Sep-07 09:37 AM

What would it take for you to reach way down in the basement of your mind
and reproduce an example?

jim

16-Sep-07 09:53 AM

re:
!> The first link returned has nothing to do with hosting a webbrowser activex
!> control in a webpage.  It is about hosting a webbrowser control (different
!> from a webbrowser activex control now that there is a crippled webbrowser
!> control included in the .Net toolbox) and using it to post to a webpage

If that's so, the guy who wrote the article doesn't know what he's writing about when he writes that :

in Microsoft Visual Basic .NET to post form data."

How is the *WebBrowser ActiveX control*, which the article describes,
different from the "webbrowser activex control" which you are referring to ?

What does what you refer to as a "webbrowser activex control" do,
which the *WebBrowser ActiveX control* described in the article doesn't do, in your judgment ?





Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 09:56 AM

I think the main question here would be "why do you want to host a webbrowser
control in a web page?".
In other words, what is the goal?
-- Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder:    http://www.blogmetafinder.com

16-Sep-07 10:03 AM

To show and extreme version of the ability of activeX controls to be hosted
in different environments.  What's more extreme than hosting a control
inside another instance of itself to show the flexibility and usability of
activex controls?

Doing so on a webpage simply drives home the fact that you are viewing a
control via in instance of that same control.

At least that's what I'm being told.....

jim

16-Sep-07 10:12 AM

Please take note of the portion "to post form data".  This is a use of the
activex control (I was wrong in stating that it was not), but it is not in a
webpage.  The author explicitly states that the control is used on a windows
form under the "Create the Visual Basic .Net Sample Project" heading.


I made a mistake and was thinking of another article to which I was also
replying at the time.  The link that you gave does show the use of the
webbrowser activex control (not the pitiful webbrowser control built into
the .Net toolbox that I referred to).

However, the web is littered with examples of using the webbrowser control
(both activex and .Net versions) in windows forms.  What I need to do is to
use it in a webpage to fulfill the requirements for this project.

jim

16-Sep-07 10:16 AM

You did not answer Peter's question :

What do you want the webbrowser control to do ?
Why would you host a webbrowser inside a web browser ?

If you want to display info...you can use an Iframe.
If you want to scrape info from another server, you can use the WebClient class.

Specifically, why do you want to embed a webbrowser control into a web browser ?




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 10:21 AM

re:
!> What I need to do is to use it in a webpage to fulfill the requirements for this project

I'll refer you to my just-sent reply. You need to be more specific.

Exactly, *what* do you want to achieve with a webbrowser control,
that can't be achieved using an Iframe or the webClient .Net class ?

Tools have specific uses.
Using a hammer as a screwdriver isn't likely to be better than using a screwdriver.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 10:21 AM

Is it not true (I am pretty sure that this was the case way back) that to
use this control, the computer on which it is used need to have Internet
Explorer installed?  That certainly wouldn't be the case for a web server.

16-Sep-07 10:33 AM

What do I want to achieve?  I want to keep my job.  I have been given the
assinine task to create a webpage that hosts a webbrowser control to show as
an example in a beginner's class on activex controls within the company.

That is my task.  Did I object?  Sure.  But, it didn't do a damned bit of
good.  They want what they want - logic be damned.

Is that a good enough explanation for you?

And, now that we have spent so much time together, do you have the requested
information or not?  I am really under a tight deadline and must concentrate
on solving this problem.

Thanks for your interest.

jim

16-Sep-07 10:39 AM

Juan, thanks for your interest, but please go away.

You obviously have no information that would help to attain the ridiculous
goals that my management staff is requiring of me and you seem to be "one of
those" argumentative MVPs that are more full of themselves than full of
knowledge.  (I've run into them before.)

If you really knew how to host the webbrowser control in a webpage, you
would not give a tinker's damn as to why and would simply answer the
question, get your lattes and be on your way.  But, argument seems to be
your goal - not the spreading of knowledge to one who is on desperate need
of it.

If Peter does not understand my response, I am sure that he is quite capable
of expressing that.  Your post here shows that you are simply out to stir up
crap.

I am blocking your posts now because I have a coding problem to solve and
simply do not have the time to waste with your argumentative hogwash.

jim

16-Sep-07 10:45 AM

The activex control being used on the webpage should try and install on the
viewer's PC if IE is not already installed on the viewing PC.  Seeing as how
IE is installed on all Windows PCs, the only possible problem would be that
of version of IE is installed on the viewer's PC.  Even then, the viewing PC
should try and install the activeX control and run the page.

So far, the specs only call for using Windows PCs (for both server and
clients).  I haven't been directed to do the impossible and run an activex
control on MAC or Linux just yet - but it wouldn't surprise me any if I
were.

jim

16-Sep-07 11:10 AM

re:
!> What do I want to achieve?  I want to keep my job.  I have been given the
!> assinine task to create a webpage that hosts a webbrowser control to show as
!> an example in a beginner's class on activex controls within the company.

Tell them it's an assinine request which doesn't make any sense,
for the reasons which have been explained to you.

re:
!> Is that a good enough explanation for you?

Nope. It's an explanation, but not a justiffication.

You should tell whomever it was who gave you that "task",
that there's better instruments to achieve what they request.

Specifically, tell them that Iframes and the webClient class can do what
they request...without embedding a web browser inside another web browser.

re:
!> And, now that we have spent so much time together, do you have the requested information or not?

I feel that I'd be giving you inforrmation which will serve for you to hang yourself.
As said before, hammers should be used as hammers, not as screwdrivers.

re:
!> I am really under a tight deadline and must concentrate on solving this problem


I wouldn't waste any time on a "problem" which is not a logical problem.

You should save your effforts for *real* problems...and you should tell
whomever it was that requested you dedicate effort to solve a non-problem,
that there's better ways to do what they requested.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 11:18 AM

re:
!> attain the ridiculous goals that my management staff is requiring of me

All that I'm saying is that you should tell them it's a ridiculous goal, and you admit it is.

re:
!> Juan, thanks for your interest, but please go away

Actually, part of what I do is keep this newsgroup focused on worthhile problems.

Since you admit that the goal which has been set for you is ridiculous,
if I were you, I'd consider *not posting ridiculous goals to this newsgroup*.

re:
!> "one of those" argumentative MVPs that are more full of themselves than full of knowledge

Hey, I've given you solid reasons.
If you think they are "argumentative", you should consider why you think that way.

Of course, you can waste your time as you see fit, but wasting the valuable time
of many people who subscribe to this newsgroup in order to find answers to real
problems, or to help, like 2 MVPs have already attempted to help you, seems odd.

Good luck with the ridiculous goal, as you yourself describe it, you've been tasked with.





Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 11:45 AM

I couldn't help but jump into the fray here.  That last comment is
ludicrous, since no one has asked you to be a moderator for this (or any
other newsgroup).  People are free to post any question they want (even if
it is ludicrous) - it's not now, or ever, been YOUR job to editorialize the
validity of those posts.

It's clear that Jim has a question related to the NG.  It's also clear that
he has no choice in doing what he's been asked.  Not everyone has the kind
of employee/employer relationship where they can just tell the powers that
be that their assignment is ridiculous.  I'd say keeping your boss happy is
a problem worth solving.

16-Sep-07 12:00 PM

Thanks Scott.

And, since this information seems so difficult to find, should I find it - I
will host a webpage with the source code so that others may learn from it.

jim

16-Sep-07 12:10 PM

re:
!> I couldn't help but jump into the fray here.  That last comment is
!> ludicrous, since no one has asked you to be a moderator for this

Actually, all MVPs do that. Doing it helps all of us save our time.

re:
!> People are free to post any question they want (even if it is ludicrous)

Of course, they are free to do that.
I am also free to point out that it's a question with no valid answer.

I never called his question "ludicrous". *He* called it a "ridiculous task",
and I pointed out that insisting on getting an answer for an impossible task
is a waste of everybody's time. I hope you don't mind that.

re:
!> it's not now, or ever, been YOUR job to editorialize the validity of those posts

I am not "editorializing", but thanks for the characterization.

I *did* post my opinion that he's saddled with a task for which there are better tools
than the one his superiors mistakenly think is the ideal tool for the job he was assigned.

I pointed them out, in fact.

re:
!> It's clear that Jim has a question related to the NG.

He was given a very strong opinion to not attempt to use that tool,
because it's the wrong tool for what he was tasked.

Peter also asked him the correct questions :

In other words, what is the goal?"

If the answer is "to keep my boss happy", I'm sorry,
I cannot honestly recommend that he do it by pulling wool over his boss's eyes.

re:
!> It's also clear that he has no choice in doing what he's been asked.

Actually, he does have a choice : educating his boss.

re:
!> I'd say keeping your boss happy is a problem worth solving.

I'd say that giving your boss the *right* answers is even better.
That, long-term, will keep him happier...and your job safer.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 12:23 PM

Scott:

RE:

Actually, I did. Last Thrusday I asked Juan to be a moderator of this group
and other newsgroups - and he is doing a great job!

Seriously, though, it is entirely likely that the OP here has *not* been
asked by his stupid boss to do this. Odds are he is just trying to use a
hammer, possibly gold in color, where a screw driver would be far better.
But even if I'm wrong about that and the gentleman posting the OP here is
really telling the honest truth, that truth would tell us that he is a
world-class brown-noser and will do whatever his boss asks - just to keep a
job in a company that doesn't listen to reason. It's even worse than that.
Apparently this obvious kludge is going to be presented in a class to
educate people who - by definition [of being a student in the class] -
wouldn't know any better. So it's not like this kludge isn't going to go
anywhere. Why should we help a world-class brown noser perpetuate an ugly
kludge well beyond some immediate project? (It's a rhetorical question).

Separately, there are a lot of folks coming to this NG who don't have a
strong technical background and are looking for ways to get their work done.
They will read other posts and get ideas for how to accomplish various
programming tasks. They simply aren't capable of decyphering - in the
moment - what is a kludge and what isn't. So it is a very good thing that we
have folks like Juan and the other more experienced developers - MVP or
not - who point out the fact that some things are bad to do. It isn't that
Juan or these more experienced developers *need* for someone to ask them to
point out kludges. They can't help it - being (1) more knowledgeable and (2)
wanting to promote best practices and standards - or at least help those
less knowledgeable to understand what the implications of their actions are.
It is obvious that many newer developers *don't* always understand the
implications of their actions - so it is helpful for someone to help them to
think it through. And for free!



Nobody questioned that.



I didn't know he was posting from Gitmo


True - but that doesn't mean that we should help him to do accomplish a
kludge


At all costs?


-Frankie

16-Sep-07 12:46 PM

Jim,
I'm not going to get involved in a potential flame war here as I don't think
it's productive. The bottom line is your efforts will likely be futile, since
the native COM IE Web Control was never designed to be hosted in a web page
via the <object clsid=.... tag arrangement. You would not be able to sink any
events and that's just for starters.  Check here for details:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q183048/
-- Cheers,
Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder:    http://www.blogmetafinder.com

16-Sep-07 12:56 PM

P.S. -
If you actually want to try it, here is some sample code:

Sub window_onload()

WebBrowser1.Navigate"

VALUE="http://www.microsoft.com"">http://www.microsoft.com"</WWLINK>

end sub
Sub document_onmousedown()
WebBrowser1.Navigate "<WWLINK TYPE="GENERIC"
VALUE="http://testserver1"">http://testserver1"</WWLINK>
end sub
-->
CLASSID="CLSID:8856F961-340A-11D0-A96B-00C04FD705A2">

-- You will find very quickly that not only can you not sink any events, but
that the newer browser security restrictions on cross-frame scripting make it
impossible to even use. Convince whoever is making this ludicrous demand of
these facts, and use an IFRAME.
Peter
--
Recursion: see Recursion
site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder:    http://www.blogmetafinder.com

16-Sep-07 01:39 PM

No Juan, all MVP's try to be helpful and make suggestions on how to get good
use of NG's.  There is nothing about your responses here that have done
that.


But, when your response has been acknowledged and you have been asked to not
make further comment as they are not helping the OP, it would seem wise to
leave well enough alone.


You are making a determination about the validity of the task Jim has and
dissmissing it.  That is the definition of editorializing.


Yes, and he has said that your opinion is not viable or helpful, yet you
persist.


Now, who's off topic?


Do you know where he works?  Do you know his boss?  I thought not.


Perhaps Jim hasn't been "asked" a question to which an answer is expected or
wanted.  Perhaps, he's been given an assignment that needs immediate
completion.  As a teacher, I know that we very often use examples in the
classroom that we would certainly not use in the real-world, but if it can
help to explain a concept, we do it and it can be very helpful.

16-Sep-07 01:42 PM

The only thing in your post that is worth replying to is that no one said
Juan couldn't make his thoughts known.  But, after doing so the first time,
his subsequent replies have just been antagonistic and serve no purpose.
The rest of your diatribe is purely speculation based on nothing.

16-Sep-07 01:43 PM

I'll refer you to Peter and Frankie's replies.
They do a much better job at explaining the problem than I ever could.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

16-Sep-07 02:16 PM

RE:
RE:


There is absolutely nothing in Juan's replies that have been antagonistic.
The fact that the OP got his panties in a bunch doesn't mean that is the
effect Juan was intending - and it doesn't mean that such a respons on the
part of the OP is justified.

Wrong again.  Juan's replies serve many useful purposes simultaneously. For
starters, it keeps other neophytes from looking at the OP and going - "
hey - cool - I wanna do that too". At least Juan's replies give them pause.
It *could* have given the OP pause too - but he decided to become offended
or somehow put out with the fact that the merits of his bad idea were called
into question. Juans replies also serve the purpose of maintaining the
integrity or usefulness of this NG. I could keep going...

Finally, we *must* make assumptions and speculate about reality - otherwise
we'd never get through life. So pointing out that I have speculated is, of
course, accurate. Of course your posts here necessarily imply a whole lot of
speculation on your part too. Nothing wrong with speculating. It's gotta be
done!

Okay, I've gotta get back to the game. The Colts are winning...

Later  (oh, and let's meet at Starbucks and discuss the meaning of life over
a Latte! Mabe the OP's original offer still stands).

-Frankie

16-Sep-07 12:07 PM

I don't think that the WebBrowser control in VB.Net 2005 would act that way.
Nor would Internet Explorer
popup the Request to Install ActiveX control dialog like it would if you
where going to a website that had
content that required a particular control to be installed ( like Flash
Player or something similar) to view that
content. For one thing, if you are running Internet Explorer, there is
already an instance of the control there.
At the most, it would just pop up another instance of Internet Explorer and
display the content.
And I don't think you could get FireFox to do it either.
At least, this is what I am getting from your statements.
If I have mis-understood your question, I am sorry. But, that is what it
appears to me you are trying to do.
james

16-Sep-07 07:21 PM

I am not looking for an explanation to the problem.  I am simply saying that
you have made your point known and there is no point in proceeding with it.

16-Sep-07 07:43 PM

There is an activex control for Firefox that could be used, but my boss
specifically wants an IE activeX control hosted on a webpage that will be
viewed with IE.

This example of nesting controls seems to amuse him, and no matter how I
argue that I can have another activex control on a web page rather quickly
he still wants his IE activex control on a webpage to view it in IE.

jim

16-Sep-07 07:42 PM

Jim,

Like the others I don't see the sense, however probably will this be your
way to achieve the goal to what you have to do.

Of course never tested, why would I use this with a webbrowser.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/06/rich/default.aspx

Cor

16-Sep-07 08:07 PM

Sounds like it is time to look for another job...


--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

16-Sep-07 09:57 PM

What is meant by "his ActiveX control"?

By itself the AxSHDocVw.AxWebBrowser control isn't especially useful.
The control needs a container that can expose a UI and
programmatically interact with the control's properties, methods and
events. Essentially this would be an ActiveX web browser control which
contains an embedded AxSHDocVw.AxWebBrowser control. Now embed the
container in the webpage.

Although I have done a lot of embedded IE in Java, Delphi, & C# I have
never considered embedding a browser in a webpage. As such my
suggestion is just a thought experiment that you might consider
pursuing.

regards
A.G.

17-Sep-07 02:34 AM

Just a figure of speech.  It's the shdocvw.dll control that ships with IE
that he wants implemented in a webpage.


That's a thought.  Although (through much bitching an gnashing of teeth) I
have found that he wanted to use the IE control because it would not have to
be registered or installed on most Windows PCs (depending on how updated the
user's PC is of course).

As far as interacting with the webcontrol in the webpage, Peter Bromberg [C#
MVP] said "the native COM IE Web Control was never designed to be hosted in
a web page via the <object clsid=.... tag arrangement. You would not be able
to sink any events and that's just for starters.  Check here for details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q183048/".

So, this whole thing may be futile.  I really don't understand the thinking
behind making the webbrowser control events and procedures NOT accessible
from within a webpage.  If Microsoft is known for anything, it's recursion.
Just look at most of the objects in VB6 and VB.Net.  They are almost all
recursed in one way or another.

The link Peter gave was for the IE4 webbrowser control.  I had really hoped
that had changed by IE7, but Peter also gave a code sample in a second post
that I tested out and I got an error message in IE7 (fully patched) that
said "Internet Explorer has blocked thsi site from using an ActiveX control
in an unsafe manner. As a result, this page may not display correctly."
This message and behavior is a result of new security measures in IE7.

That alone will doom this task as we cannot really expect all users to lower
their security settings (or even know how to) just to run this "educational
webpage".

So, I have a couple of lattes to hand out.  2 to Peter and 1 to you for your
help also.  Where is the nearest Starbucks?  I'll phone in your orders.


Thank you for your suggestion.  I also recommended an entirely different
path.  I recommended wrapping an IE application using Thinstall.  That would
also get rid of any requirements to install anything on the end user's PC.
The end users would have to run the executable (just over 2.2MB) but there
is no install or registering of components (even 3rd party components)
required.

Seems the objection to Thinstall is two-fold.  (1) Price.  Thinstall starts
at $4,995 PER APPLICATION and before client licensing is considered.  (2)
Thinstall apps require lots more bandwidth than simply embedding a control
that is already on most Windows PCs.

I keep poking him for the real reason behind holding so steadfastly to a
difficult solution to a simple problem of teaching about activex controls,
but he's not cracking yet.  It *has* to be something more than he's telling
me.

Thanks for your suggestions!

jim

17-Sep-07 02:37 AM

Peter,

Thanks so much for the code.

I tested your code in an HTML page via IE7 (fully patched) and got a message
that said "Internet Explorer has blocked this site from using an ActiveX
control in an unsafe manner. As a result, this page may not display
correctly."  This message and behavior is a result of new security measures
in IE7.

That alone will doom this task as we cannot really expect all users to lower
their security settings (or even know how to) just to run this "educational
webpage".

So, I have a couple of lattes to hand out.  2 to you and 1 to A.G. for his
help also.  Where is the nearest Starbucks?  I'll phone in your orders.

jim

17-Sep-07 02:54 AM

As a test, I set all advanced IE options to Eabled or Prompt for the Trusted
Sites zone and added my test domain to this zone.

The page appears as a blank page.  No IE control was evident on the page.
So I changed the background color of the page to dark blue - then I could
see the control and some code on the page.

It seems that the line {WebBrowser1.Navigate "<WWLINK TYPE="GENERIC"
VALUE="http://testserver1"">http://testserver1"</WWLINK>} stops at the {:}
in the link and displays {http://www.microsoft.com" end sub Sub
document_onmousedown() WebBrowser1.Navigate "http://testserver1" end
sub -->} on the top of the webpage.

Even if I get past this problem though, there is still no way to interact
with the control, is that right?

jim

17-Sep-07 03:22 AM

Hello Jim ,


In the VB6 days this would have been a easy task , as you could then write
activex controls thal loaded in web pages and you could simply throw a
webbrowser control on one of them and control it through VB code of the
actuall parent VB control .

However due to secuirity restrictions , this is nowadays almost impossible
to acomplish in the real world  ( apps deployed to end users , even with VB6 )

However in a managed environment this would still be an easy task in VB6

with .Net AFAIK  there is no true substitute for this VB6 functionality , i
guess the closest you can come is trying to initiate and controling the
control through Jscript

So maybe your boss is giving you this task  because he has Pre .Net
knowledge where this would have been an easy task .

In the meanwhile i wil investigate for you if i can get it to work , as i
have some thorough experience with the webbrowser control  ( VB6 and the ax
control in VB.Net )

regards

Michel Posseth

17-Sep-07 03:30 AM

Already on it.......

jim

17-Sep-07 03:32 AM

I will take any help I can get.

Thanks!

jim

17-Sep-07 03:48 AM

After reading the hole post  the following

1.  the security popups would also occur with a custom VB6 activex control
you even needed to sign the cab files to show a popup with green markers
then it still required the explicit confirmation of the user ( this was
already so with IE 4 )

2. the security in IE has only gone stricter ,

3. have you considered builing a smart application if i read your last post
and understaqnd your requirments correctly , a .Net smart application would
be a perfect substitute


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_client

user navigates to youw web / intranet  page with a through explanation what
wil happen , clicks the install link  , the framework will install all
necesary components automaticly and will launch the application, the
application is actually delivered to the client throuh IE



Hope to have given you some ideas

regards

Michel

17-Sep-07 04:14 AM

hmm ...


That Link Cor provided looks verry promissing ,,, if you can throw a listbox
, puzzle on a webform and display this on a web page.

why would a webbrowser control fail ?? ...

i have just tested the example ( Rich.exe downloadable from the link Cor
provided )  and installed the files to my IIS directory  after calling the
file controls.html   it just shows the 2 listboxes without displaying anny
warning at all

so i tested this from a remote client ( other computer on my LAN ) and again
it shows the listboxes without anny warning at all

i understood from the docu that this is functioning  because it runs in an
isolated storage .

so i guess this is your solution , just throw a webbrowser control on the
parent control and you have forfilled your task  ( the example is C# but it
is verry simple and with the link information it should be an easy task )

Seems like your boss is not such an idiot as some people thought :-)


hth

Michel

17-Sep-07 05:25 AM

The more I poke at the shriveled grey mass he affectionately calls his
brain, the more specific he seems to get (which is expected of all end
users/project managers I suppose).

One of his (unspoken) goals was to be able to load this page without and
installs (hence the use of the IE control) and avoid any problems with PCs
that are locked down and may not allow the end users that are viewing the
educational material the ability to install anything locally.

I have looked at the link that you provided (thanks for that) and I have
googled some results for .net smart client.

It seems that the major hold up in using a smart client for this project is
the requirement for .Net 2.0 to be pre-installed on the clients.  As we will
not have access to the PCs to make those changes for all that may view the
web pages, we cannot make sure that this is the case.  Additionaly, any user
that wants to use click once apps and tries to install the .Net 2.0
framework must have admin privileges and we were trying to keep this in the
browser to avoid installation issues like that.

Your suggestion was a good avenue to pursue and brings up a couple of
thoughts that I had on the subject of click once deplyoment.

1) It is quite obvious that the .Net framework is a key component of
Microsoft's future plans for the Windows operating systems and applications
written for them.  So, why is the .Net framework an elective download?  Why
not push out such an important component of the overall Windows platform?
Just doesn't make sense to me.

2) Why are click once apps' security settings dependent upon the location
from which they are launched?  Wouldn't it be better to alert a user that a
particular app (no matter where it is launched from) is requesting (or
requiring) specific permissions (like read/write access to program
directories or the ability to edit the registry) and let the user make the
call to (a) allow only certain behaviors, (b) trust the application or (c)
trust the location and all apps lainched from it?  I certainly think it
would make click once deployment a more viable alternative for truly
powerful desktop applications.

3) Thinstall is an application that can wrap your application into a single
executable.  It encapsulates all of the .Net framework needed to run your
app - so the user does not have to have .Net installed.  It also
incorporates all COM components and DLLs into the EXE and requires NO
REGISTRATION of these components to work.  Thinstall even runs your app in a
virtual sandbox and can obfuscate the whole thing for you.  I can't, for the
life of me, figure out why Microsoft has not incorporated this technology
into the build and deployment cycle of .Net applications.

Thanks again for your input.  I love the idea of click once deployment, but
with competing technologies like Thinstall out there - click once is years
behind in application deployment technology.

jim

17-Sep-07 05:34 AM

Got to get a couple of hours sleep - I will look at this more in depth
tomorrow.

Thanks for the link!

jim

17-Sep-07 05:48 AM

See inline comments


* see bottom


Actually it was for a verry short time not an optional download , the push
was not apreciated by corporate admins , and that is the reasson why it is
how it is right now :-(




Again this was AFAIK a request from the techy`s  ( corporate administrators
etc ) all this can be done however it must be set explicitly  i guess MS
doesn`t want to take anny risks in terms of vulnerability ( claims towards
them as they had in the activex  time )

Sounds great , however it is 1 pretty expensive and 2 doesn`t sound verry
safe

hmm well i use click once for a lot of my apps however i currently work for
a energy company where we have a managed network so i actually know that all
computers have the .Net farmework installed

* have you seen my post where i told i tested the code from the link that
Cor provided  ( return of the rich client ) ?

this also works with a sandbox ( isolated storage ) and did work flawlessly
and without anny installation routines on my systems   , and best of all it
is easy to acomplish and is free


regards
Michel

17-Sep-07 07:42 AM

Forget the latte - we are all here to help.
Yes, you are pretty much sunk with using the IE control in a webpage.
Browser security restrictions have been tightened up so much in the last few
years that it is basically a lost cause. Use the IFRAME tag.
-- Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site:  http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog:  http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder:    http://www.blogmetafinder.com