mixed SQL2k/VS 2003 and SQL05 environment?

I'm looking for information on how the various pieces/parts of RS could work
in our environment. Currently that:
+ several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
+ multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
development and production/runtime environments.
1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET 2003
and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and ASP.NET
2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS 2005?
4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet, do
we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET 1.1
web pages work?
Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty I'm
after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-- MargoFirst. RS 2005 can be installed on a 2000 database. You do need to have a
2005 license though.
RS 2005 is more fully featured and I do think if you are starting out I
would go that route.
RS 2005 is a framework 2.0 app. It comes with a version of VS 2005 so you do
not have to purchase VS 2005 unless you want the new controls.
VS 2005 and VS 2003 can coexist side by side (I am doing that).
Only report authors need VS 2005 environment.
From asp.net 1.1 web pages you can integrate either using url integration or
web services. BUT, the new controls from VS 2005 allow much easier and
tighter integration. The new controls require asp.net 2.0 (2.0 framework).
You can definitely have both 1.1 and 2.0 framework on the same IIS server.
If you want the new controls then buy VB.Net professional (cheapest way to
get the new controls).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Margo Noreen" <margo_no_spam@.on2morning.com> wrote in message
news:eAHcFxLBGHA.2788@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking for information on how the various pieces/parts of RS could
> work in our environment. Currently that:
> + several SQL Server 2000 boxes (individual instances on individual and
> distinct servers) on Windows Server 2003.
> + multiple load balanced web servers running on Windows 2000 with IIS5,
> mixture of "classic" ASP and .NET web applications authored in Visual
> Studio, Visual Studio .NET 2003.
> We have a need to implement Reporting Services, but are confused about the
> path to take. My instinct tells me to start a brand new implementation of
> RS by using SQL 2005. For us, that should not be a problem. We could
> easily take one of our SQL 2k boxes and upgrade to SQL 2005.
> But now the questions are related to the implications on our .NET
> development and production/runtime environments.
> 1) do we need to install .NET 2.0 on our web servers? (I'm assuming yes)
> 2) will this impact our existing .NET 1.1 applications in anyway?
> 3) what about our developers, all set up already w/ Visual Studio .NET
> 2003 and ASP.NET 1.1? Will they need install Visual Studio .NET 2005 and
> ASP.NET 2.0? Will this affect their existing visual studio projects?
> Or, to minimize the impact, will only report *authors* need to have VS
> 2005?
> 4) To make reports available on our existing ASP.NET 1.1 based intranet,
> do we need to have ASP.NET 2.0 web pages developed or can existing ASP.NET
> 1.1 web pages work?
> Hopefully this gives you the gist of the kind of technical nitty-gritty
> I'm after. Any links, direct info, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> -- Margo
>
>|||Thank you for the quick reply Bruce... this actually confirms what I was
reading and otherwise stitching together; it was nice to get another nod in
that direction... Seems like it shouldn't be so hard... <g>.
-- Margo