ASP.NET 2.0 A move forward or a step backward?
-
Currently on a web project and we're using ASP.NET 2.0 and I must say I did enjoy using ASP.net 2.0, and found it to be quite stable blah blah. But I have been doing some Code reviews and tweaks blah blah. and something kind jumped out at me, after all this Declarative coding thing. Isn't it quite a step back again to the old days of ASP coding, where code and HTML is all mixed together again? Making a Web Designers job little more difficult again? Alot of the Development is now just Drag and Drop, and assign properties and you're basically done. Which is good for the Developer as you are able to get alot of things done in one day, and alot of Donkey is taken away, leaving time to focus on the Juicy bits. But when the Designers get thier hands on the HTML and need to start doing thier bit, it's kind of messy for them.
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
-
Currently on a web project and we're using ASP.NET 2.0 and I must say I did enjoy using ASP.net 2.0, and found it to be quite stable blah blah. But I have been doing some Code reviews and tweaks blah blah. and something kind jumped out at me, after all this Declarative coding thing. Isn't it quite a step back again to the old days of ASP coding, where code and HTML is all mixed together again? Making a Web Designers job little more difficult again? Alot of the Development is now just Drag and Drop, and assign properties and you're basically done. Which is good for the Developer as you are able to get alot of things done in one day, and alot of Donkey is taken away, leaving time to focus on the Juicy bits. But when the Designers get thier hands on the HTML and need to start doing thier bit, it's kind of messy for them.
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
I agree, with 1.0 and 1.1 they tried to get people away from coding in the GUI and now they say that since it will be compiled out before serving to someone it is ok to do it again. Probably too much :(( from the "I dont want to change" folks so they had to go back is my guess.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
Currently on a web project and we're using ASP.NET 2.0 and I must say I did enjoy using ASP.net 2.0, and found it to be quite stable blah blah. But I have been doing some Code reviews and tweaks blah blah. and something kind jumped out at me, after all this Declarative coding thing. Isn't it quite a step back again to the old days of ASP coding, where code and HTML is all mixed together again? Making a Web Designers job little more difficult again? Alot of the Development is now just Drag and Drop, and assign properties and you're basically done. Which is good for the Developer as you are able to get alot of things done in one day, and alot of Donkey is taken away, leaving time to focus on the Juicy bits. But when the Designers get thier hands on the HTML and need to start doing thier bit, it's kind of messy for them.
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
Why do you feel you have to mix your code with the HTML? That goes against, what I feel, is one of the nicest aspects of ASP.NET, i.e. Code Behind. Your designers working with HTML shouldn't even see your code.
-
Why do you feel you have to mix your code with the HTML? That goes against, what I feel, is one of the nicest aspects of ASP.NET, i.e. Code Behind. Your designers working with HTML shouldn't even see your code.
Microsoft has said that it is ok and good to do this if you wish since the code is never sent to the client due to the dynamic compiling at the server. Look on MSDN for 2.0 examples, they do this repeatedly, I hate it because it's hard to follow but I know many people that are so used to classic ASP that they probably love it.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
Why do you feel you have to mix your code with the HTML? That goes against, what I feel, is one of the nicest aspects of ASP.NET, i.e. Code Behind. Your designers working with HTML shouldn't even see your code.
I agree! If you drag, let say a grid view on to a web form, drop SQLdatasource on the form, bind to a database etc, then bind the grd view to the form, blah blah. Then Take a Look at Source View, you will that inline code has been placed on the form
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
-
Microsoft has said that it is ok and good to do this if you wish since the code is never sent to the client due to the dynamic compiling at the server. Look on MSDN for 2.0 examples, they do this repeatedly, I hate it because it's hard to follow but I know many people that are so used to classic ASP that they probably love it.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)I don't listen to everything MS says, and the fact that code isn't sent to the client isn't new; ASP Classic only sent HTML to the client, ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 only ever sent HTML (with ViewState) to the client, and in both of those I never mixed code and markup. The examples that are even visible, with code mixed with markup, piss me off unbelievably. I can't deal with the fact that published, sanctioned, developers still can't get out of the freaking BODY.
-
I don't listen to everything MS says, and the fact that code isn't sent to the client isn't new; ASP Classic only sent HTML to the client, ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 only ever sent HTML (with ViewState) to the client, and in both of those I never mixed code and markup. The examples that are even visible, with code mixed with markup, piss me off unbelievably. I can't deal with the fact that published, sanctioned, developers still can't get out of the freaking BODY.
Brady Kelly wrote:
The examples that are even visible, with code mixed with markup, piss me off unbelievably.
Im still considered a newbie after a year and a half of web development but I hate code in the GUI portion, I love code behind!
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
I agree! If you drag, let say a grid view on to a web form, drop SQLdatasource on the form, bind to a database etc, then bind the grd view to the form, blah blah. Then Take a Look at Source View, you will that inline code has been placed on the form
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
... is hardly code. The majority of generated code ends up in the .cs and .designer.cs files, not in the .apsx file.
-
... is hardly code. The majority of generated code ends up in the .cs and .designer.cs files, not in the .apsx file.
No but something like
<xGrid:xGrid SkinID="TreeViewGrid" ID="GridView1" runat="server" AllowPaging="True" AllowSorting="True" AutoGenerateColumns="False" DataSourceID="AvailablePersonnel" OnRowClick="AddMenuItem" EnableRowClick="True" AscImage="~/App_Themes/Main/images/upBlue.gif" ContextMenuID="" DescImage="~/App_Themes/Main/images/downBlue.gif" MouseOverColor="210, 217, 225" CellPadding="5" EmptyDataText="No Menu Items Available." DataKeyNames="RoleWebPersonnelID" > <Columns> <asp:BoundField DataField="DepartmentName" HeaderText="Department" SortExpression="DepartmentName" /> <asp:BoundField DataField="RoleName" HeaderText="Role" SortExpression="RoleName" /> <asp:BoundField DataField="Fullname" HeaderText="Fullname" SortExpression="Fullname" /> </Columns> < PagerTemplate> <%= GridView1.PageCount * GridView1.PageSize %> Menu Items (<%= GridView1.PageIndex * GridView1.PageSize + 1 %> to <%= GridView1.PageIndex * GridView1.PageSize + GridView1.PageSize %> displayed) <asp:LinkButton CommandName="Page" CommandArgument="Prev" ID="LinkButton2" runat="server">< Previous</asp:LinkButton> Page <%= GridView1.PageIndex + 1 %> of <%= GridView1.PageCount %> <asp:LinkButton CommandName="Page" CommandArgument="Next" ID="LinkButton3" runat="server">Next ></asp:LinkButton> </PagerTemplate> </xGrid:xGrid>IS :zzz:
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
-
No but something like
<xGrid:xGrid SkinID="TreeViewGrid" ID="GridView1" runat="server" AllowPaging="True" AllowSorting="True" AutoGenerateColumns="False" DataSourceID="AvailablePersonnel" OnRowClick="AddMenuItem" EnableRowClick="True" AscImage="~/App_Themes/Main/images/upBlue.gif" ContextMenuID="" DescImage="~/App_Themes/Main/images/downBlue.gif" MouseOverColor="210, 217, 225" CellPadding="5" EmptyDataText="No Menu Items Available." DataKeyNames="RoleWebPersonnelID" > <Columns> <asp:BoundField DataField="DepartmentName" HeaderText="Department" SortExpression="DepartmentName" /> <asp:BoundField DataField="RoleName" HeaderText="Role" SortExpression="RoleName" /> <asp:BoundField DataField="Fullname" HeaderText="Fullname" SortExpression="Fullname" /> </Columns> < PagerTemplate> <%= GridView1.PageCount * GridView1.PageSize %> Menu Items (<%= GridView1.PageIndex * GridView1.PageSize + 1 %> to <%= GridView1.PageIndex * GridView1.PageSize + GridView1.PageSize %> displayed) <asp:LinkButton CommandName="Page" CommandArgument="Prev" ID="LinkButton2" runat="server">< Previous</asp:LinkButton> Page <%= GridView1.PageIndex + 1 %> of <%= GridView1.PageCount %> <asp:LinkButton CommandName="Page" CommandArgument="Next" ID="LinkButton3" runat="server">Next ></asp:LinkButton> </PagerTemplate> </xGrid:xGrid>IS :zzz:
Kind Regards, Gary
My Website || My Blog || My Articles
Granted, it's close, and my quote didn't come out right, but I still only view the stuff I do as 'code'. That other stuff is just, often literally, template stuff.