ASP better than JSP?

Why we need to develop online system with JSP? Why we don't just use ASP technology to develop the system since it is simple and easy to configure than JSP. Furthermore, JSP got many problems for newbie to set up the server but ASP is very easy, just need to install PWS or IIS.

Isn�t ASP using VBS? And JSP using JAVA. Probably a good reason.

Similar Messages

Why PHP is better than JSP,Servlet(Java Web Apps) ?

Well, my heart says JSP, Servlets are better but rent a coder and job market, demand-supply seems to be saying a different story... ? Why we should not learn PHP then ?

dcminter wrote:
You can develop web sites in PHP in two shakes of a lambs tail. But they aren't maintainable as they would be in .NET or J2EE and again the performance (which dicates what you can do as well as scalability) is between a scripted language with buggy runtime and a compiled language with an optimized runtime so you tell me. Yes, but rather like Spinoza's argument for the existence of God, an application that has existence is more perfect than one which exists only in the conception. Even if the conceptual one is faster.
I don't denigrate languages like PHP that help novices get stuff done.
To address the OP's complaint: If one language was objectively "best" then we would only need one language. In practice they all have strengths. The more you learn the more you'll know which to use for the task at hand. That said, to learn any language (even PHP) in profound depth will take the best part of ten years and maybe longer. Sometimes expediency leads us to use the language we understand better to solve a problem for which it is not ideally suited.Eloquent - well said.
Bonus points for that Spinoza reference.
%

If JSP is an extension to Servlets then in what case is one better than ...

If JSP is an extension to Servlets then in what case is one better than the other... can someone give me an example?

i wouldn't want to argue with previous poster, because i'm not too over confident with this thing, but i have got an undersatanding that .jsp's are translated to servlates and then compiled...
so technicaly jsp does exactly what servlet does...
but when you work with .jsp pages, then you can create web applications more rapitly and indeed there are those special tags that you may define for your self... (though i've never used them -- but then again, i'm just a n00b to JSP technology)

Why is hyper-v better than virtualbox?

We have 4-5 people in a software development environment with access to 4 servers, each with 2 quad-core or dual-core cpu's (core-based, before nehalem), and 8gb or 16gb RAM, so I think we have a good amount of power for virtualization. Total, we have a
team foundation server, oracle server, web server, 2 virtualization servers, and multiple workstations, some virtualized, some not.
When we started virtualizing about a year ago, for whatever reason, and although everyone has an MSDN sub, we started using VirtualBox instead of Hyper-V. I'm no expert (and that's why I'm here) but I think they operate at different levels of interaction
with the hardware, and that VirtualBox is a bad idea for this environment.
Can someone give some good reasons why we should be using Hyper-V? Also is it possible to convert the virtual machines?
And then I would like to know if it's okay to also be virtualizing our web server and oracle server, etc. We have only been virtualizing workstations. I think we really need to make good use of virtualization if we are going to be doing it at all.
Advice welcome also for virtualization best practices, backups, management, infrastructure design, etc. I would like to start with a domain controller, and maybe a Lync server so we can share desktops, etc. Thanks for all input!

In my opinion Hyper-V is only better if your using Hyper-V to host servers, like Microsoft SharePoint, Active Directory, Sql Server, or even MySql to provide resources.
If you intend to be using Virtualizatio to develop software, like Working with SharePoint from a developer standpoint, building asp.net web applications, or even doing C++, desktop applications, or Android, Php etc, if you are going to be physically on the
VM using it as your environment to write code and design, then Oracle VirtualBox is better than Hyper-V.
With hyper-v your limited to using The Connect console, or Remote Desktop Protocol to see the virtual machine. The RDP console leaves much to be desired. It only gives you the option to use all of your monitors or one, it won't do 2 if you have
3. I like to use my third monitor to keep my email open, and pdf documentation, or word documents and use the other two monitors for my VM so I can see multiple code windows in Visual Studio at the same time (VS2010). Oracle handles multi monitors
so much better. And if I want to surface an adroid phone through USB to my VM, oracle is the only way to go there, or maybe VMWare, but VirtualBox is free.
However, Hyper-V is now native to Windows 8 desktop version and windows 8 server version. And most companies dealing with microsoft products use Hyper-V for their VM's, so from a multi developer environment, it makes sense for us to use Hyper-V with
windows 8 because all of our servers run on Hyper-V. If we need to troubleshoot something we can grab a copy of the latest server VM backup and spin it up locally on Hyper-V with windows 8 without having to do any conversions.
But from a developer standpoint it is really hard for me to leave VirtualBox. If RDP could work my 2 of my monitors and not all 3 or 4 of them I would have no complaints. Third part RDP sofware isn't any better, it could never compare to the
deep integration and speed of windows RDP. My main issue is, if RDP can do all of my monitors why can't it do just 2 of them, seems like a big thing to leave out in my opinion, it's so frustrating. It's such an awesome part of windows with such
a huge annoying handicap. I've actually thought about just having another computer for my third monitor, like a tablet or something on a stand. Sure you can SPAN a monitor in Windows so it acts like one monitor and I can tell RDP to go full screen
but it has a width limit and then I need extra software on the VM to handle the big resolution like 2 screens instead of one.
My Blog: http://www.thesug.org/Blogs/ryan_mann1/default.aspx Website: Under Construction

Is application developed by servlet more secure than jsp?

jsp has appeared, but someone still use servlet.
Those reason is that servlet can make application higher security. Is it true?

Servlets are no more secure than JSPs, because JSPs are servlets - they're just another way of building the same thing. There is nothing you can do in a JSP that you can't do in a servlet or vice versa.
Why switch to or from JSPs or servlets? - you should be using both. Use servlets for heavy processing logic and JSPs for presentation (MVC pattern). That way you get maximum separation of logic and presentation. You can pretty much let HTML developers work normally, then come along afterwards and stick a little bit of Java code in the page to make it all dynamic. Better still, you can create easy-to-use custom tags that your HTML developers can easily understand without needing any programming experience. This leaves you free to work on the logic in the back-end.

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

ASP better than JSP?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for