Re: Ektron's .NET/ActiveX Solution

John <[email protected]> wrote on 02/28/2005, 06:36:46 PM:
> "CMS400.NET on the server is 100% .NET-based.  There are no COM objects 
> or pre-.NET technologies used and there is no unmanaged code, period."
> 
> The ActiveX control seems to be applied to a greater number of features 
> such as your template editor; are there plans to rewrite this tool in a 
> more open technology, even a .NET client?  It looks like the .NET CMS 
> developer guide is 176 pages; I seem to remember the ActiveX 
> configuration documentation being somewhat longer?  

I think there's a misconception between server and client technologies.
The statement made by Tim seems to contain no half-truth -- only truth.


Any interaction between a user and the server obviously has to be made
with some client side technology. The leaves us with HTML with DOM
scripting, some plugin architecture (Active-X, Java, Flash), or a
desktop app (like a .NET client).

At anything but the HTML level, I'm not sure how one technology is any
more "open" than any other. 

> I also find this misleading:
> "(which, by the way, works in IE, Netscape, and Firefox as well)"
> 
> Which platforms (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.) support the Ektron 
> controls?  With what difficulty and rights must it be installed?  Is 
> that greater or less than the number of browsers that already have Flash 
> installed?  I agree with you that Ektron's primary value lies in the 
> ActiveX controls, 

ActiveX certainly gives you a lot more control than a Flash application
ever could. People develop ActiveX controls because it allows the power
of a desktop application to be easily accessible in a web page. That's
not something you can get from Flash and that's not something you can
get in a .NET client. 

> but what is the future of ActiveX?

But what is the future of any technology? Every technology evolves. In
any case, Microsoft, in general, has had a fairly consistent track
record in supporting their older technologies, even as new ones get
introduced. I fully suspect that I'll still be able to run an active-x
control 5 years down the road. Just like I'll still be able to run java
applets or flash.

> purist; I want to go with a technical leader, not a mix with proprietary 
> technologies (ok, maybe .NET even on the server is not exactly open, but 
> it's...better).  When I last evaluated CMS products I requested a demo 
> of the Ektron .NET product, but unfortunately the technician showed me 
> the previous product for unknown reasons.  He mentioned the products are 
> the same but one uses .NET.  My client at the time wanted to avoid this 
> ActiveX as it had been a problem in the past, but I went through the 
> demo to see if there were any features that would make up for this.  As 
> soon as he dropped into code it looked proprietary, though it may have 
> been classic ASP which I never learned.  

I think your lack of understanding of the Ektron products has skewed
your opinion. Now, while I certainly don't claim to be an expert, from
what I understand, Ektron offers their CMS in multiple flavours. Among
which are the CMS300 and the CMS400, which is the same as the CMS300
but done in .NET. So, you likely got a demo of the CMS300 but you were
confused because it was in a type of code that you didn't recognize.
The demo could have been using the ASP, ColdFusion or PHP versions.
None of which are any more or less open than .NET.

> Although it may not be listed 
> in RFPs, I would expect organizations to prefer vendors committed to a 
> single technical platform for development, enhancement, support, etc.

I'd rather choose a vendor based on how their product or service meets
my needs rather than their how attached they are to a specific
technology.

Jonathan Snook