Poll on Moving Subtext To ASP.NET 3.5

subtext 0 comments suggest edit

How many of you out there who use Subtext host it on a hosting provider who does not have ASP.NET 3.5 available? I’d like to make the next version of Subtext 2 take a dependency on 3.5. Note that it wouldn’t have to take a dependency on SP1. Just ASP.NET 3.5 proper as I believe most hosting providers support it.

If you’re stuck with a hosting provider who only supports ASP.NET 2.0 and not 3.5, do leave a comment.

Note that we’re still in the planning stages for Subtext 3, which will be built on ASP.NET MVC. In the meantime, I still plan to update Subtext 2.*. In fact, much of the work we will do for Subtext 3 may be prototyped in 2.* and ported over.

Found a typo or error? Suggest an edit! If accepted, your contribution is listed automatically here.

Comments

avatar

36 responses

  1. Avatar for Andrei Rînea
    Andrei Rînea November 27th, 2008

    My hoster has IIS7 with ASP.NET 3.5SP1 and I've deployed succesfully even MVC apps (placing the three assemblies - Abstractions, Routing and Mvc - in the bin folder).

  2. Avatar for Tudor
    Tudor November 27th, 2008

    Unfortunately, there are still many hosting providers which offer only .NET Framework 2.0 (mainly because Windows 2003 Server R2 comes with .NET 2.0 included, while 3.0 or 3.5 must be installed separately), so it's still early to move on to 3.5.
    Maybe when most hosting providers will upgrade to Windows 2008 Server (which includes only .NET 3.0, maybe 2008 SP1 will include 3.5), but this won't happen too soon, I'm afraid..

  3. Avatar for Vijay Santhanam
    Vijay Santhanam November 27th, 2008

    Upgrade! Take a dep on the latest bits.
    Can't wait to see how you design4extensibility into Subtext for v2

  4. Avatar for Alex
    Alex November 27th, 2008

    Running 3.5 SP1 @ IIS7 - Ready for action! ;-)

  5. Avatar for Christian Schiffer
    Christian Schiffer November 27th, 2008

    Running 3.5 SP1 @ IIS7 - Ready for action too! ;-)

  6. Avatar for Michael McGovern
    Michael McGovern November 27th, 2008

    Lack of true 3.5 support is the only thing that is keeping me from switching back to your otherwise excellent blogging platform.

  7. Avatar for Stefano Demiliani
    Stefano Demiliani November 27th, 2008

    Having Subtext on ASP.NET 3.5 will be a great idea and a great changement. I can agree that not all the service providers are ready for ASP.NET 3.5, so YES for the movement for the 3.0 version, but keep available the ASP.NET 2.0 versions for a while.

  8. Avatar for James Thigpen
    James Thigpen November 27th, 2008

    Even my el cheapo 10$/mo shared hosting package supports ASP.NET 3.5. It's hardly a premium feature these days.

  9. Avatar for Magnus Mårtensson
    Magnus Mårtensson November 27th, 2008

    +1 for ASP 3.5 ;~)

  10. Avatar for Robert G
    Robert G November 27th, 2008

    Phil,
    While it's true that some or most of the providers don't support 3.5, by the time S2 is out, they most likely will be.

  11. Avatar for haacked
    haacked November 27th, 2008

    @Robert, Subtext 2 is already out. We just released 2.1. :)

  12. Avatar for Robert G
    Robert G November 28th, 2008

    Doh. Forgot to take my morning meds. You know what I meant.

  13. Avatar for labilbe
    labilbe November 28th, 2008

    +1 for ASP.Net 3.5

  14. Avatar for Pawel Pabich
    Pawel Pabich November 28th, 2008

    All major hosting companies offer .NET 3.5.

  15. Avatar for Charles Nurse
    Charles Nurse November 28th, 2008

    The problem is not whether hosting proiders offer ASP.NET 3.5 - most do. But, and this is important, usually only for new accounts. If you are on a box with ASP.NET 2 installed and it is full, then you will likely need to get your site moved to a new box to get 3.5 - they won't upgrade a full server box.

  16. Avatar for Jorriss
    Jorriss November 28th, 2008

    3.5 SP1 sounds great!

  17. Avatar for Michael McGovern
    Michael McGovern November 28th, 2008

    @ Charles Nurse; Why not? Adding 3,5 to a full box only allows the users to take advantage of 3.5. It will not take anything from them.

  18. Avatar for yazılım
    yazılım November 29th, 2008

    ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 on IIS 7

  19. Avatar for WebDevVote
    WebDevVote November 29th, 2008

    you're been voted!!
    Track back from webdevvote.com/.../Poll_on_Moving_Subtext_To_AS...

  20. Avatar for Julian Birch
    Julian Birch November 29th, 2008

    Lunarpages, sadly, is still tied to .NET 2.0.

  21. Avatar for Mike Swim
    Mike Swim November 30th, 2008

    Go ahead and upgrade. We've already gone to 3.5.

  22. Avatar for Paul Green
    Paul Green November 30th, 2008

    This reminds me of the PHP4 - PHP5 hosting. Do ASP hosts not allow you to have both available. For PHP, a lot of hosts allow you to switch between PHP4 and 5 using a server config file.

  23. Avatar for Jon Galloway
    Jon Galloway November 30th, 2008

    You know what I'll say... upgrade!!!
    Nobody's stuck with their hosting providers, and there are plenty of hosters that offer .NET 3.5 for less than $10/month.

  24. Avatar for Steve Hiner
    Steve Hiner November 30th, 2008

    My host provides Win 2k8 and ASP.NET 3.5 but they charge more for it. Despite that I think you should switch to 3.5. I don't mind not upgrading and I'd love to see what you can do with the 2.0 shackles taken off.

  25. Avatar for Roy
    Roy November 30th, 2008

    Why don't you dump it and start from scratch.
    SubText is so over-engineered. I looked through the source code and so many developers in bits and pieces here and there have turned the code base into Spaghetti code.
    How do you guys even manage to keep the releases in control ? something like this would drive me (and most real developers) mad !

  26. Avatar for haacked
    haacked December 1st, 2008

    @Roy we are planning to start from scratch, but I still want to release incremental updates in the meanwhile. Some of the new work can be ported over to the rewrite. Doing a rewrite is a non-trivial task for an OSS project in which everybody has a day job and has to devote their free time to work on it. The point being that it will take a long time to get a rewrite release out.

  27. Avatar for Jeny Young
    Jeny Young December 1st, 2008

    +1 for ASP.NET 3.5+

  28. Avatar for Charles Nurse
    Charles Nurse December 1st, 2008

    @Michael McGovern - Because they are of the philosophy that if it ain't broke don't fix it. Any addition of new components poses a risk - and if the server is sold out then what does it gain them?
    This is not theoretical - it has happened to me.

  29. Avatar for Minhajuddin
    Minhajuddin December 1st, 2008

    I don't host my blog on Subtext, But I am very excited about the change in framework from web forms to MVC. I am interested in contributing for the development of Subtext for MVC.

  30. Avatar for Lorn
    Lorn December 3rd, 2008

    .NET 3.5?
    Don't do that,I am afraid.

  31. Avatar for Jeff Ancel
    Jeff Ancel December 4th, 2008

    NET 3.5 is good for me. I wrote my site on MVC but don't think I am going to go further now that I hear that this will be going MVC can't wait to hear more.

  32. Avatar for haacked
    haacked December 15th, 2008

    I've recompiled Subtext 2.1 for ASP.NET 3.5. Download it here and try it out.

  33. Avatar for Dave Schinkel
    Dave Schinkel February 17th, 2009

    Cannot wait. Discountasp has .NET 3.5 and will most likely have 4.0 very soon once that comes out. No reason not to move the next version to the latest NOW.

  34. Avatar for Dave Schinkel
    Dave Schinkel February 17th, 2009

    Any word on when you guys are recoding it to MVC?

  35. Avatar for Jens Melgaard
    Jens Melgaard March 30th, 2009

    I Think ill be able to get up and running with 3.5, at least my hosting provider sells the web hotel I am registered with as having support for: "ASP.NET 3.5 (medium trust)", currently my config won't let me choose it though, but it's properly just a request I need to make.
    I Would really like to hear about the real benefits of moving up... If there's no fundamental benefits, then I would not let all those stuck on 2.0 down. (MVC already seems to be something you are waiting for v3 with so).

  36. Avatar for Ken
    Ken April 6th, 2009

    Still dealing with the installation of subtext 2.1
    ...