Conclusion: the "success story" with RazorEngine and MVC 4
-
And for the record, I: 1. git-cloned the RazorEngine repo 2. changed the System.Web.Razor reference from 3.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.0 (otherwise both were being referenced, 3.0 by RazorEngine and 2.0 by the MVC 4 framework) 3. compiled it 4. Added a reference to RazorEngine from the RazorEngine.core bin folder And lo-and-behold, I was able to use the RazorEngine to parse a cshtml into a string. One last note -- when I tried to use WebMail on the host provider, I got a security violation, requiring this fix:
Sigh. I feel like I'm playing Whac-a-Mole. Whack one problem, and another surfaces. This should NOT be this hard! (Gee, I think I said the same thing about Ruby on Rails) So, a couple lessons learned: 1. Don't use NuGet package installer. Build the pieces from the source code directly. 2. Make sure all the System.Web.[crap] assembly references reference exactly the same dll's. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
I thought nuget was to manage dll versions properly. Never used it myself though, because I'm a dinosaur ;P.
Wout
-
And for the record, I: 1. git-cloned the RazorEngine repo 2. changed the System.Web.Razor reference from 3.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.0 (otherwise both were being referenced, 3.0 by RazorEngine and 2.0 by the MVC 4 framework) 3. compiled it 4. Added a reference to RazorEngine from the RazorEngine.core bin folder And lo-and-behold, I was able to use the RazorEngine to parse a cshtml into a string. One last note -- when I tried to use WebMail on the host provider, I got a security violation, requiring this fix:
Sigh. I feel like I'm playing Whac-a-Mole. Whack one problem, and another surfaces. This should NOT be this hard! (Gee, I think I said the same thing about Ruby on Rails) So, a couple lessons learned: 1. Don't use NuGet package installer. Build the pieces from the source code directly. 2. Make sure all the System.Web.[crap] assembly references reference exactly the same dll's. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
The moral of the story: Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I thought nuget was to manage dll versions properly. Never used it myself though, because I'm a dinosaur ;P.
Wout
I've never had issue with NuGet, over a couple of years, except recently with EF 6. It adds a reference to
EntityFramework.SqlServer, which is never used in any code, but nonetheless required. So as soon as you "Remove unused references", it vanishes in a loud puff of smoke, leaving you head scratching about what broke. But then again, I've never even come across thisRazorEnginemonster. :~No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
-
And for the record, I: 1. git-cloned the RazorEngine repo 2. changed the System.Web.Razor reference from 3.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.0 (otherwise both were being referenced, 3.0 by RazorEngine and 2.0 by the MVC 4 framework) 3. compiled it 4. Added a reference to RazorEngine from the RazorEngine.core bin folder And lo-and-behold, I was able to use the RazorEngine to parse a cshtml into a string. One last note -- when I tried to use WebMail on the host provider, I got a security violation, requiring this fix:
Sigh. I feel like I'm playing Whac-a-Mole. Whack one problem, and another surfaces. This should NOT be this hard! (Gee, I think I said the same thing about Ruby on Rails) So, a couple lessons learned: 1. Don't use NuGet package installer. Build the pieces from the source code directly. 2. Make sure all the System.Web.[crap] assembly references reference exactly the same dll's. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Wow. Well, the project I'm on started with MVC 4, Razor 2, and EF 5. All installed with NuGet with no problems. The updrades to MVC 5, Razor 3, and EF 6 went pretty smoothly, though a few manual steps were required for the upgrades to work properly. I never had to do any of the stuff you're going through.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
The moral of the story: Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I see the file date for RazorEngine 2.1 is 2011. New version? Mature I can see, quite mature. Maybe a bit long in the tooth though.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
-
The moral of the story: Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
Yeah, I've been waiting since I started using Windows 3.1 ;) However, it is MVC 4 (and there's 5 already out too.) So how long does this stuff need to sit in the casket and ferment? Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Wow. Well, the project I'm on started with MVC 4, Razor 2, and EF 5. All installed with NuGet with no problems. The updrades to MVC 5, Razor 3, and EF 6 went pretty smoothly, though a few manual steps were required for the upgrades to work properly. I never had to do any of the stuff you're going through.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave KreskowiakDave Kreskowiak wrote:
Well, the project I'm on started with MVC 4, Razor 2, and EF 5. All installed with NuGet with no problems.
Agreed - I had no issues with the core components. But the minute I tried adding something on top, kaboom.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
The updrades to MVC 5, Razor 3, and EF 6 went pretty smoothly, though a few manual steps were required for the upgrades to work properly.
I'm thinking of updating to MVC 5, but I might do that on a VM and see how it goes first. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
Yeah, I've been waiting since I started using Windows 3.1 ;) However, it is MVC 4 (and there's 5 already out too.) So how long does this stuff need to sit in the casket and ferment? Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Quote:
However, it is MVC 4 (and there's 5 already out too.) So how long does this stuff need to sit in the casket and ferment?
Sir, 6 is also out. They are producing faster than letting a developer learn..:D
Suraj Sahoo | Coding Passion wrote:
Sir, 6 is also out.
Good grief. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
I see the file date for RazorEngine 2.1 is 2011. New version? Mature I can see, quite mature. Maybe a bit long in the tooth though.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
But still only 2.1, so still an "early" version. Going by MS' record, "mature" would be 2.3 or higher -- pretty much any major version of an MS product needs to get to at least the third service pack before most of the complaints are dealt with.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Windows isn't the only product where you should wait until a new version has matured a bit.
Yeah, I've been waiting since I started using Windows 3.1 ;) However, it is MVC 4 (and there's 5 already out too.) So how long does this stuff need to sit in the casket and ferment? Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Hanging around a long time just makes it dated. To mature it has to be improved with age.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
And for the record, I: 1. git-cloned the RazorEngine repo 2. changed the System.Web.Razor reference from 3.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.0 (otherwise both were being referenced, 3.0 by RazorEngine and 2.0 by the MVC 4 framework) 3. compiled it 4. Added a reference to RazorEngine from the RazorEngine.core bin folder And lo-and-behold, I was able to use the RazorEngine to parse a cshtml into a string. One last note -- when I tried to use WebMail on the host provider, I got a security violation, requiring this fix:
Sigh. I feel like I'm playing Whac-a-Mole. Whack one problem, and another surfaces. This should NOT be this hard! (Gee, I think I said the same thing about Ruby on Rails) So, a couple lessons learned: 1. Don't use NuGet package installer. Build the pieces from the source code directly. 2. Make sure all the System.Web.[crap] assembly references reference exactly the same dll's. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Not sure what you are trying to do exactly, but whenever I run into a version conflict with the System.Web stuff, an assembly binding usually does the trick (an assembly binding basically says "whenever you see versions x-y if this DLL, use version z instead"). I agree, though, it is a bit like Whac-a-Mole. After installing a Windows update a week or two ago, many of my projects stopped working and required a modification to their assembly bindings (and/or removed/re-added references). I still have a project that inexplicably no longer has intellisense (compiles fine, but says everything is an error in the IDE). :doh:
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Well, the project I'm on started with MVC 4, Razor 2, and EF 5. All installed with NuGet with no problems.
Agreed - I had no issues with the core components. But the minute I tried adding something on top, kaboom.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
The updrades to MVC 5, Razor 3, and EF 6 went pretty smoothly, though a few manual steps were required for the upgrades to work properly.
I'm thinking of updating to MVC 5, but I might do that on a VM and see how it goes first. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Marc Clifton wrote:
But the minute I tried adding something on top, kaboom.
Is this not then a fault of the "something on top" rather than of MS, MVC, and Razor?
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
-
Not sure what you are trying to do exactly, but whenever I run into a version conflict with the System.Web stuff, an assembly binding usually does the trick (an assembly binding basically says "whenever you see versions x-y if this DLL, use version z instead"). I agree, though, it is a bit like Whac-a-Mole. After installing a Windows update a week or two ago, many of my projects stopped working and required a modification to their assembly bindings (and/or removed/re-added references). I still have a project that inexplicably no longer has intellisense (compiles fine, but says everything is an error in the IDE). :doh:
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I still have a project that inexplicably no longer has intellisense (compiles fine, but says everything is an error in the IDE)
Do you have Resharper installed? I had this problem & found instructions to delete the _resharper (from memory, this may not be the exact name) folders. Unfortunately, I didn't appear to have these & it was a machine reboot that fixed it. Regards, Stewart
-
Not sure what you are trying to do exactly, but whenever I run into a version conflict with the System.Web stuff, an assembly binding usually does the trick (an assembly binding basically says "whenever you see versions x-y if this DLL, use version z instead"). I agree, though, it is a bit like Whac-a-Mole. After installing a Windows update a week or two ago, many of my projects stopped working and required a modification to their assembly bindings (and/or removed/re-added references). I still have a project that inexplicably no longer has intellisense (compiles fine, but says everything is an error in the IDE). :doh:
AspDotNetDev wrote:
an assembly binding usually does the trick
Agreed. Unfortunately there is no message other than a vague "two versions of the same assembly are being referenced", but of course the idiot that programmed that message didn't think to indicate which assembly. And that message only occurs under certain circumstances. Unfortunately again, the root cause, being a dependent assembly, makes it almost impossible to know which binding to make. Now that I think about it, I should have bound every assembly, mwahaha. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
But the minute I tried adding something on top, kaboom.
Is this not then a fault of the "something on top" rather than of MS, MVC, and Razor?
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
Brady Kelly wrote:
Is this not then a fault of the "something on top" rather than of MS, MVC, and Razor?
Well, there is no specific thing to blame. It's a combination of factors -- DLL version hell, DLL dependency hell, package installers that will install the latest and greatest without checking if you've got the latest and greatest other stuff that it depends on, etc.etc.etc. Which of course, because there is no single point of failure to fix, means the issue doesn't get fixed. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Is this not then a fault of the "something on top" rather than of MS, MVC, and Razor?
Well, there is no specific thing to blame. It's a combination of factors -- DLL version hell, DLL dependency hell, package installers that will install the latest and greatest without checking if you've got the latest and greatest other stuff that it depends on, etc.etc.etc. Which of course, because there is no single point of failure to fix, means the issue doesn't get fixed. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Marc Clifton wrote:
Which of course, because there is no single point of failure to fix, means the issue doesn't get fixed.
Too true, in fact.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
an assembly binding usually does the trick
Agreed. Unfortunately there is no message other than a vague "two versions of the same assembly are being referenced", but of course the idiot that programmed that message didn't think to indicate which assembly. And that message only occurs under certain circumstances. Unfortunately again, the root cause, being a dependent assembly, makes it almost impossible to know which binding to make. Now that I think about it, I should have bound every assembly, mwahaha. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
If you turn on detailed debug information, you will get more information about the affected assemblies.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I still have a project that inexplicably no longer has intellisense (compiles fine, but says everything is an error in the IDE)
Do you have Resharper installed? I had this problem & found instructions to delete the _resharper (from memory, this may not be the exact name) folders. Unfortunately, I didn't appear to have these & it was a machine reboot that fixed it. Regards, Stewart
Nope, Resharper caused more problems than it solved, so I never installed it on my current VM.
-
If you turn on detailed debug information, you will get more information about the affected assemblies.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
If you turn on detailed debug information, you will get more information about the affected assemblies.
Ah - I'll add that to my "toolchest" - I typically configure the build output to quiet or minimal or whatever the lowest setting is. Though, my particular problem was such that the build on my dev box reported no problems, but when I "deployed" onto the host server, I got a dependency error which was impossible to determine what the issue was because it's a hosted server rather than a machine I have full control over. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming