SiteMaps a lost cause!
-
Is Microsoft planning to upgrade the SiteMap object in .NET 2.0 to actually work or is the underlineing design intrinsically flawed? This is the question I asked myself repeatedly in the last few days and I think I finally was able to understand why the SiteMap object will never truely represent most site maps correctly. Before I explain the issue I wanted to know what others thought.:confused:
nothing
-
Is Microsoft planning to upgrade the SiteMap object in .NET 2.0 to actually work or is the underlineing design intrinsically flawed? This is the question I asked myself repeatedly in the last few days and I think I finally was able to understand why the SiteMap object will never truely represent most site maps correctly. Before I explain the issue I wanted to know what others thought.:confused:
nothing
SiteMap works. :confused:
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
-
Is Microsoft planning to upgrade the SiteMap object in .NET 2.0 to actually work or is the underlineing design intrinsically flawed? This is the question I asked myself repeatedly in the last few days and I think I finally was able to understand why the SiteMap object will never truely represent most site maps correctly. Before I explain the issue I wanted to know what others thought.:confused:
nothing
The whole issue around SiteMaps, is that they are built using the Provider pattern. This means that you can "easily" implement your own SiteMap that drops in, as long as it follows the Site Map Provider pattern. MS never intended their implementation of SiteMaps as being the "be all and end all" of site maps.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
Is Microsoft planning to upgrade the SiteMap object in .NET 2.0 to actually work or is the underlineing design intrinsically flawed? This is the question I asked myself repeatedly in the last few days and I think I finally was able to understand why the SiteMap object will never truely represent most site maps correctly. Before I explain the issue I wanted to know what others thought.:confused:
nothing
So This is what I found. The SiteMap is flawed because it assumes that every site can be modled as a Tree structure. Given a site that models a network topology and it crashes. I would guess most sites actually model a real network rather then a tree. The reason you can't model a network for a SiteMap is simple. Given any two nodes in the network you can not assume any one path will lead from node to node. Hence resolution of the path fails. Typically this causes the developer to try a variety of other approaches to resolve this ambiguity of path.
nothing
-
The whole issue around SiteMaps, is that they are built using the Provider pattern. This means that you can "easily" implement your own SiteMap that drops in, as long as it follows the Site Map Provider pattern. MS never intended their implementation of SiteMaps as being the "be all and end all" of site maps.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.The fact that they used a provider pattern makes sense and I have no problem with that aspect. However, the idea that the component can only model Trees is a bit limited. Many sites typically have more complex connectivity then a tree is able to describe. Any resolution to this will always seem forced and cumbersome. :|
nothing