My First Real-World Exposure to .Net Programming
-
(1) kid sister rule maybe? (2) I wouldn't do it
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
kid sister rule maybe?
Oh! Just forgot about that.
Abhishek The worst loneliness is not to be comfortable with yourself. --Mark Twain
-
I work full time as an ASP.NET developer working on some pretty big applications, and I've never encountered a time when I needed to have more than one
on the page. Are you trying to integrate non-.NET systems with the page? I could see how that could get dicey, but staying strictly in the ASP.NET realm, everything works well as designed. I agree that the it is by far the best thing to have come out for dynamic web applications. An earlier comment was made about ASP.NET making a web site stateful instead of stateless. This is exactly why you would have picked up ASP.NET to begin with. If you want a stateless web page, just write it in HTML.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
I could be completely wrong here as I have never used ASP.NET 2.0 but wasn't that one of the major good points of it... it produced standards compliant code. Plus, with the new output renderers (I can't remember if that iscorrect name) that come withwith Atlas (you can also download them separately IIRC) it now does proper things like using CSS for layout instead of tables and so on. As far as I know they have written replacement output renders for all the built in controls and they use CSS etc and standard conventions.
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote:
I could be completely wrong here as I have never used ASP.NET 2.0 but wasn't that one of the major good points of it... it produced standards compliant code.
Hm. I have HTML validator plugin plugged-into my Firefox. It show a small icon in the statusbar - red when there'are errors on the page, yellow for warnings without errors and green if x/html code of current page is fully ok. And while surfing the web, seing green "valid" icon is VERY rare thing, even for sites made with ASP.NET (BTW, according to my experience, the highest percent of correct sites is among those made with Ruby/Rails). Thats a pity, IMHO. But anyway I'm very glad that Microsoft finally has stopped perverting and agreed that there is a W3C existing and there are some conventional standards for the web.
-
Actually my knowledge is fine, if you read above you will see it is true that you cannot have multiple server-side forms in ASP.NET. That is a bad thing. It breaks conventional web practices.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Could you explain your single mindnedness about multi server side form per page? hey, why do you care?!?! this is just packaging, I can't see a relevant impact on the code.. :omg:
-
Brian Delahunty wrote:
hat's not correct. It only allows one server-side form... i.e. a form in which ASP specific components (e.g. asp:lable) will be evaluated. You can still have multiple forms and access their values etc on the server as you would normally.
Without runat="server" you might as well not use ASP.NET on your page. So, a major suckage of ASP.NET is that it can only handle one server-side form on a page at time (I didn't think I had to be so specific with you lot :) .) Tons of ASP.NET stuff needs to be inside a form runat="server" for it to work AFAIR. If they dropped that limitation I'd be a lot happier with ASP.NET. As for the stateful arguement other frameworks handle it a lot better, they don't convolute what is a simple, straightforward pipeline (or tubes, wich horses can run down but casino chips block.) ASP.NET is WinForms for the web (they even named it WebForm) which at first glance is awesome but then starts to suck big time as you do real world systems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Hey all, I think I'll be stepping into Asp.Net here in the near future and I was wondering about the use of multiple forms. I have done pretty much zilch in web development so everything is pretty much new to me. When the subject of multiple forms came up, it didn't occur to me that a web page could have that. Does anybody happen to know of a webpage that uses multiple forms so I can take a look at it? I just want to get my footing on what I can and can't do. Thanks, Keith
-
I work full time as an ASP.NET developer working on some pretty big applications, and I've never encountered a time when I needed to have more than one
on the page. Are you trying to integrate non-.NET systems with the page? I could see how that could get dicey, but staying strictly in the ASP.NET realm, everything works well as designed. I agree that the it is by far the best thing to have come out for dynamic web applications. An earlier comment was made about ASP.NET making a web site stateful instead of stateless. This is exactly why you would have picked up ASP.NET to begin with. If you want a stateless web page, just write it in HTML.
A profile update page with password reset, image upload and account details. Each is a seperate logical action. I may want to just upload a new image and not update the password or account details. Or just reset the password and not upload a new image. With one form if I tried to submit after just updating the password bit and not the image bit then validation would fire across all members of the form. The validation would have to figure out what I intended and not fire. That is extra work that isn't needed. Or if you select an image to upload but then decide that no, you don't want and instead you just want to update the password. When you hit submit the image is uploaded even though you didn't want it to be. That is a problem to. Every member of the form gets sent ot the server, not just the relevant ones as would be with multiple-form capability. If you have many upload fields you can end up submitting way more than is needed. There is good reason why multiple forms are allowed in a web page. That ASP.NET breaks that is an unfortunate thing.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Hey all, I think I'll be stepping into Asp.Net here in the near future and I was wondering about the use of multiple forms. I have done pretty much zilch in web development so everything is pretty much new to me. When the subject of multiple forms came up, it didn't occur to me that a web page could have that. Does anybody happen to know of a webpage that uses multiple forms so I can take a look at it? I just want to get my footing on what I can and can't do. Thanks, Keith
Amazon.com[^] has four forms. Yahoo.com has two. Many pages on this website (CodeProject.com) have three forms. It is a basic, fundamental aspect of web dev.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
I work full time as an ASP.NET developer working on some pretty big applications, and I've never encountered a time when I needed to have more than one
on the page. Are you trying to integrate non-.NET systems with the page? I could see how that could get dicey, but staying strictly in the ASP.NET realm, everything works well as designed. I agree that the it is by far the best thing to have come out for dynamic web applications. An earlier comment was made about ASP.NET making a web site stateful instead of stateless. This is exactly why you would have picked up ASP.NET to begin with. If you want a stateless web page, just write it in HTML.
shadowbob2 wrote:
I work full time as an ASP.NET developer working on some pretty big applications, and I've never encountered a time when I needed to have more than one
on the page.
I'll be short - Could someone explain why would someone need more than one form on a page? I too work with asp.net and never even had to think about this issue, let alone see any difficulty with it in developing large apps.
-
A profile update page with password reset, image upload and account details. Each is a seperate logical action. I may want to just upload a new image and not update the password or account details. Or just reset the password and not upload a new image. With one form if I tried to submit after just updating the password bit and not the image bit then validation would fire across all members of the form. The validation would have to figure out what I intended and not fire. That is extra work that isn't needed. Or if you select an image to upload but then decide that no, you don't want and instead you just want to update the password. When you hit submit the image is uploaded even though you didn't want it to be. That is a problem to. Every member of the form gets sent ot the server, not just the relevant ones as would be with multiple-form capability. If you have many upload fields you can end up submitting way more than is needed. There is good reason why multiple forms are allowed in a web page. That ASP.NET breaks that is an unfortunate thing.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Or if you select an image to upload but then decide that no, you don't want and instead you just want to update the password. When you hit submit the image is uploaded even though you didn't want it to be.
That is a valid reason, if a slight corner case. To distill what you said, you're worried about posting back large amounts of unnecessary data on submit. In this case you would definitely have to design your application around it, like putting the upload on its own page, or inserting some client-side code to remove the image if the other submit button was pressed. Jeremy Fuller
-
A profile update page with password reset, image upload and account details. Each is a seperate logical action. I may want to just upload a new image and not update the password or account details. Or just reset the password and not upload a new image. With one form if I tried to submit after just updating the password bit and not the image bit then validation would fire across all members of the form. The validation would have to figure out what I intended and not fire. That is extra work that isn't needed. Or if you select an image to upload but then decide that no, you don't want and instead you just want to update the password. When you hit submit the image is uploaded even though you didn't want it to be. That is a problem to. Every member of the form gets sent ot the server, not just the relevant ones as would be with multiple-form capability. If you have many upload fields you can end up submitting way more than is needed. There is good reason why multiple forms are allowed in a web page. That ASP.NET breaks that is an unfortunate thing.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
With one form if I tried to submit after just updating the password bit and not the image bit then validation would fire across all members of the form. The validation would have to figure out what I intended and not fire. That is extra work that isn't needed.
Thats what the ValidationGroup property of the validators is for. All you would need in the situation you describe is a seperate button for each action and set then, just the ValidationGroup value as necessary. BAM! Only what you're trying to submit is validated.
Paul Watson wrote:
Or if you select an image to upload but then decide that no, you don't want and instead you just want to update the password. When you hit submit the image is uploaded even though you didn't want it to be.
Again, using a seperate button to submit each "part" would resolve this situation.
Paul Watson wrote:
Every member of the form gets sent ot the server, not just the relevant ones as would be with multiple-form capability. If you have many upload fields you can end up submitting way more than is needed.
This can be easily avoided using Async Callbacks (or Ajax) which, is all the rage these days. That would allow you to, not only, send just the info you want to the server, it also makes the web page much more responsive. Just my 2 cents. -- modified at 19:44 Friday 11th August, 2006
-
Christian Graus wrote:
ASP.NET is THE reason why .NET is killer, it's the one place where it provides an amazing platform in a world where all prior platforms absolutely blew chunks.
I used to think that but then realised how warped ASP.NETs view of the web is. I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Hey Paul, I agree with you at least. Not only that, they added crap like tons of viewstate to make the illusion happen. The viewstate itself isn't bad, but making every control persist its state there is an enormous hack.
and of course [they] outsource their technical support to a land where English bears little resemblance to the language I speak - Christopher Duncan