ASP.NET vNext: the future of .NET on the Server

ASP.NET vNext: the future of .NET on the Server

Rate This
  • Comments 27

At TechEd we announced our plans and vision for ASP.NET vNext. ASP.NET vNext is being designed from the bottom up to be a lean and composable .NET stack for building web and cloud based applications. You can find an overview of ASP.NET vNext and walkthroughs of the current experience at http://www.asp.net/vnext.

  • MVC, Web API, and Web Pages will be merged into one framework, called MVC 6. MVC 6 has no dependency on System.Web.
  • ASP.NET vNext includes new cloud-optimized versions of MVC 6, SignalR 3, and Entity Framework 7.
  • ASP.NET vNext will support true side-by-side deployment for all dependencies, including .NET for cloud. Nothing will be in the GAC.
  • ASP.NET vNext is host agnostic. You can host your app in IIS, or self-host in a custom process.
  • Dependency injection is built into the framework.
  • Web Forms, MVC 5, Web API 2, Web Pages 3, SignalR 2, EF 6 will be fully supported on ASP.NET vNext
  • .NET vNext (Cloud Optimized) will be a subset of the .NET vNext Framework, optimized for cloud and server workloads.
  • MVC 6, SignalR 3, EF 7 will have some breaking changes:
    • New project system
    • New configuration system
    • MVC / Web API / Web Pages merge, using a common set of abstractions for HTTP, routing, action selection, filters, model binding, and so on
    • No System.Web, new lightweight HttpContext

To learn more about the ASP.NET vNext announcements, see the TechEd sessions:

ASP.NET vNext is an open source project released under Apache License Version 2.0 by Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. You can follow its progress and find instructions on how to contribute on https://github.com/aspnet .

We’d love to hear your feedback. Please provide it in Github, comments on this blog, or the ASP.NET vNext forum. If you ask question in Stack Overflow, use asp.net-vnext tag.  Thanks for being with us in this exciting time.

Leave a Comment
  • Please add 6 and 5 and type the answer here:
  • Post
  • Surely it should be called ASP.NET vNext except for Web Forms.  Apparently Web Forms is so entangled within the .NET framework that when you remove it it breaks the framework.  Surely then you should be throwing resources at it to fix the problem.

  • @Max, @Xinyang Qiu - It looks like the .kproj files are .csproj files with Imports for ProjectK. If you remove the ProjectK lines (and change the extension to .csproj) they will load. It's somewhat useful in order to look through the code, but not for compilation. A quick way to change all the .kproj and .sln files is to use a PowerShell script:

    $kprojs = Get-ChildItem *.kproj -Recurse;

    $slns = Get-ChildItem *.sln -Recurse;

    $kprojs |% {

       $content = Get-Content $_;

       $ProjectKRemovedContent = $content |? { $_ -notmatch "ProjectK"; };

       $newFilename = $_.FullName.Replace(".kproj", ".csproj");

       $ProjectKRemovedContent | Set-Content $newFilename;

    }

    $slns |% {

       $content = Get-Content $_;

       $ProjNameSwappedContent = $content |% { $_.Replace(".kproj", ".csproj"); };

       $newFilename = $_.FullName.Replace(".sln","CS.sln");

       $ProjNameSwappedContent | Set-Content $newFilename;

    }

  • @steven.maglio.sa , thanks! It's great idea to play with the code before we release the ASP.NET vNext tooling support.

  • What plans do you have about WCF. Can we expect support for WCF or will you provide some alternative for integration scenerios?

  • I'd be interested to know how the WebAPI story is going to integrate directly into the MVC pipeline. MVC simplifies the HTTP pipeline using it's simple ActionResult abstractions for Controller actions. With WebAPI we get this complete pipeline to modify, extend, etc. using the flexibility of the Http* types that form the core of WebAPI. How do you plan to migrate this functionality over to MVC?

  • For all of you complaining why there is no Web Forms; this is a good chance for you to completely make Web Forms a history.

  • @Stilgar - give it up man, nobody cares about web forms.

  • Great post! Thanks.

  • I think Web Forms needs a revamp. MVC doesn't cut it for LOB applications as it stands now. MVC would be fine if it had UI controls like Web Forms. I think there shouldn't be a rule that MVC can't have them. Look at JavaServer Faces. It has UI controls and uses MVC. MVC was a major step backwards with regard to developing UI in a simple and robust fashion. IMHO, Microsoft had a good idea to begin with with Web Forms. They shouldn't abandon it just to parrot Ruby On Rails.

  • I love MV6 on CTP. Looks very good.

  • Can you please clarify "Web Pages will be merged into one framework, called MVC 6"? Will it be possible to build web sites without using MVC pattern, as well as Web Pages allows now?

  • @Davide, yes, exactly like what you said.

Page 2 of 2 (27 items) 12