MVC Framework
-
Frankidoze wrote:
Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development?
Of course we do - why whenever Microsoft releases a technology like Ajax or Silverlight, we rush to learn the *NEW* way of doing things.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
For personal interest I'm ready to jump in even if I'm still lost in .NET jungle (<-- kindy new here to this world of interesting madness :) ), but what about my boss? I would like to tell him: Well MVC is out and doing well so we need to drop what we have and redo the entire thing...Just because it's new and fun...Guess I'm day dreaming... And how the market will respond to it?
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
-
Frankidoze wrote:
Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development?
You won't have to - it's an entirely optional new framework designed to keep people from moving to Ruby on Rails for those that like that model, and Scott is pretty clear that you can still keep using the Page model, and even include both in the same Web site.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey wrote:
to keep people from moving to Ruby on Rails
You can move to MVC for .NET today if you go with http://www.castleproject.org[^].
Todd Smith
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
to keep people from moving to Ruby on Rails
You can move to MVC for .NET today if you go with http://www.castleproject.org[^].
Todd Smith
while they did do better data-binding on asp.net than winforms before it, and while the new MVC framework and LINQ is a ruby and castle, nhibernate style of chasing the bloat to new dimensions, I believe there will be more 'ViewModel-like' headaches even with MVC and even WPF, simply the result of so many drooling (re:worse than leaky) abstractions in the toolkit :-) Either that or embarassing RAM and/or unnecessary GC workload 'utilisation' (profile those web servers for yourself and see how bad it gets). Piece and Love to .NET, I meant SmallTalk, Java and Steele's writings on Lisp fans
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
to keep people from moving to Ruby on Rails
You can move to MVC for .NET today if you go with http://www.castleproject.org[^].
Todd Smith
How is Castle? I've heard it's a bit of an investment in time/mind to get working with it...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
For those who yet not aware of check this:http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development? Well won't be a first ;)
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
You don't. But, I'd recommend you at least give it a try when you have a moment. At the very worst, you can decide you don't like it.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
For those who yet not aware of check this:http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development? Well won't be a first ;)
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
Not really all you have to basically do is understand what events you wish to handle on the page then write events manually handling all business logic on another layer rather then UI BL on UI layer, which inturn makes life so much easier with regards to unit testing. I personally have been implementing a modified version of MVP lately and find it very effective, removes alot of clutter.
-
For those who yet not aware of check this:http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development? Well won't be a first ;)
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
You don't have too but, since the Page model of ASP.NET sucks so badly, you probably should :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
For those who yet not aware of check this:http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development? Well won't be a first ;)
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
Am I a bad programer if I dont use the MVC Framework? Only been at this for a couple years and I've done some pretty cool (and stable) stuff with "Page/Postback" and AJAX. Should I be thinking in terms of abandoning this and applying the MVC Framework to all my new projects? I understand the MVC Framework enables unit testing butI don't do any of that now. Does that make me a bad programer? I Didn't go to school for this stuff and there are methodologies everywhere. Does the fact that Scottgu and his team developed this framework mean I should move to it. Or is this just another "thing"? Those of you who have been around a while, share some wisdom with me.
-
How is Castle? I've heard it's a bit of an investment in time/mind to get working with it...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Let's see.... The nVelocity template language may take about 20 minutes to master (if you're slow). There's about 2 minutes of copy'n'pasting into the web.config. The actual code is pure C#, which is even simpler than ASP.Net. There's a simple Getting Started tutorial on the site. http://castleproject.org/monorail/gettingstarted/index.html[^]
Truth, James
-
How is Castle? I've heard it's a bit of an investment in time/mind to get working with it...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
We have just started to use castle and its very good. The main problem we found was that there is not a huge amount of information about it but once you understand it (whichfor me was a hours demo by a fellow techi so all the hard work had been done ;P) we were up and running. We did not use the MVC pattern with it however, we have preferred the MVP pattern. We found this related better to the way we wanted to work with ASP.NET page and made it very easy to tie the pages to the presenters.
-
Am I a bad programer if I dont use the MVC Framework? Only been at this for a couple years and I've done some pretty cool (and stable) stuff with "Page/Postback" and AJAX. Should I be thinking in terms of abandoning this and applying the MVC Framework to all my new projects? I understand the MVC Framework enables unit testing butI don't do any of that now. Does that make me a bad programer? I Didn't go to school for this stuff and there are methodologies everywhere. Does the fact that Scottgu and his team developed this framework mean I should move to it. Or is this just another "thing"? Those of you who have been around a while, share some wisdom with me.
cspikes wrote:
I understand the MVC Framework enables unit testing butI don't do any of that now. Does that make me a bad programer?
Of course not. But, in my opinion unit testing is really worth the effort. Besides encouraging you to think about your end-result it also gives you confidence in the stability of your code.
cspikes wrote:
Only been at this for a couple years and I've done some pretty cool (and stable) stuff with "Page/Postback" and AJAX.
I am sure you have. Personally, I have never liked the page model in asp.net and moved away from the platform because of it. But, what matters is that you are enjoying yourself. But, give the MVC framework a look and you might see why there was a demand for it. In my opinion among other things, it leads to cleaner code.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
For those who yet not aware of check this:http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx Does this means we have to drop all actual .NET Page/Post back knowledge and start to learn a "new" way of Web .NET development? Well won't be a first ;)
"Nothing is lost, Nothing is created, Everything is transformed" Lavoisier
From what I can see, the MVC ASP.NET is targeted at enterprise development to make it easier to handle unit testing. At what cost? Loss of all current third party libraries since they all use the postback methods along with partial page rendering unless you tie things to a web server or something like that. I personally like the current page model to ASP.NET along with postbacks and callbacks. Makes life easy for me, but for a large enterpise site, removing that flexilbity for a clean testible structure would make more sense. Does not appear to be practical for general web development. Of course I might be a bit bias as I do not buy into the MVC pattern anyway for most general projects as it can tie your hands in situations where you have to practically hack out solutions to provide the functionality you want. Sure, it will force you into good clean structure for your code and allow complete seperation, but it can take a lot more work at times.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: MVC for ASP.NET! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?