Open.ChannelExtensions VS ASP.NET Core

Open. ChannelExtensions

Low level channels is always a bit messy for me. The ChannelExtensions library is the way to go for me, the code is much cleaner.

For streaming you should look into channels. The built in functionality is a bit too low level to be immediately useful, but if you use the ChannelExtensions library https://github.com/Open-NET-Libraries/Open.ChannelExtensions it's very easy to work with IAsynEnumerable and do things like batching, merging and transforming.

This approach to organizing middleware enhances code readability, maintainability, and reusability. By following this encapsulation pattern, you're adhering to best practices in ASP.NET Core development, ensuring your application remains well-organized and scalable.

🌟.NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET 9 Preview 2 Discussion ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 Release Notes ➡️EF Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET Aspire preview 4 - .NET Aspire

https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/50643

Even if you look at Microsoft’s by far most popular GitHub project, they’re still only half as big as SupaBase. If you believe “the SupaBase story”, SupaBase grew and became twice as large as Microsoft in 3 years. Below is their likes over time if you’re curious, together with a couple of additional “too good to be true” Silicon Valley projects.

https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/10117

To achieve these objectives, we will take inspiration from ASP.NET Core Identity's PasswordHasher class. It incorporates a concept of hash versioning, allowing only the number of iterations to be modified.

yes I watched several courses, may be aim not getting clearly. but i worked with asp.net which uses http call and firebase cloud function also which uses socket connection, for socket connection its makes sense to use observable bcoz there streams of data we can observe once the connection establish ,but for http it need to be call every time.

As I'm not utilizing ASP.NET, despite its resource-intensive nature and occasional unpredictability, I prefer the cost-free option. I'm hesitant to invest in EPPlus or engage in trials, and moreover, I am more proficient with Interop. Given the limited volume of records in my department, there's a preference for utilizing tools covered by our existing license. This avoids the need for navigating through layers of approval within the chain of command and ensures compliance with our contractual agreements and Microsoft's patch management, ultimately aligning with a cost-saving mindset.