|
I find the server control design paradigm to be a bit of a pain. I prefer to set up an ASP.NET project with one .aspx file in it. All this page does is redirect to my home .aspx page.
Then, all other pages have their entire content including any needed System.UI.Web.Page events wired up and stored in class libraries in various other assemblies within my solution. The .aspx page itself for these classes has one line of code in it like the following:
<%@ Page language="c#" AutoEventWireup="false" Inherits="MyNameSpace.ClassName" %>
All my code ends up in one file for debugging purposes. I used to love the old VB 6.0 web class design paradigm and this pretty much duplicates it.
|
|
|
|
|
As some people around here know I have stopped doing CP surveys as I think it may skew the results.
Anyhow I really don't know what ASP.NET server controls are.
There is one C in the name but in general I have no idea what they are.
After posting this message I'll do a bit of googling to find out what they are.
Hey if CP is going to have a whole survey on them, I should know more about them.
If the option had been offered of "I dunno wot ASP.... are" I wonder howmany of the 67% would have answered.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use.
It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
 
Notorious SMC
The difference between the almost-right word & the right word is a really large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the Lightning
Mark Twain
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
CodeProject spans a lot of different technologies and you don't have to answer every single survey. If I had a survey every week on C++ then the web guys and girls (and there are more and more of them every week) wouldn't be able to participate.
The surveys are also meant to be a prod to make you read up a little about the tecnology before you vote. Having a 'I don't know what it is' option is a cop-out. That's why God invented Google[^].
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
God invented Google[^].
I knew He didn't stop on the 6th day... 
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
Where the HTML output does not matter I use the ASP.NET controls as they are convenient; This is generally in admin suites or extranet type web-apps that are locked to one browser (as much as I hate doing that.)
Where HTML matters* then one relies on normal HTML controls as the ASP.NET controls spit out quite a bit of garbage.
I will say though that custom/user/server controls are abso-farking brilliant. They have their problems (like user controls have to have the flipping declaration at the top of the ASPX page and outputting HTML from custom controls is no fun what with all the C# slashes) but on the whole it has been a good experience.
Frankly I don't think MS give a hoot about XHTML or the W3C so I am not expecting them to rollout validating ASP.NET controls any time soon. Up to us to make them.
* Some guys go nuclear over the misuse of a byte or two in their C++ code. I go nuclear over people who output garbage HTML.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
brianwelsch wrote:
I find my day goes by more smoothly if I never question other peoples fantasies. My own disturb me enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
ASP.NET controls as they are convenient
What do you think then if someone tells you the team who made the ASP.NET IE web controls (treeview, ...) has been dropped, with the consequence that the controls are left as is, and unsupported. Amazing, isn't it ?
Paul Watson wrote:
MS give a hoot about XHTML or the W3C
MS and standard committees in the same sentence, are you kidding me?
MS has always been destroying others' standards, and used their market position to impose their own standards. Remember SMIL ? One week before the whole work at W3C went WD, MS aggressively quit the work group saying that the standard was too limited. Of course, in MS words it was meaning "it's not COM enabled, and in addition we wouldn't have total control over it". Since Internet Explorer only supports HTML+TIME, a proprietary ActiveX-COM-enabled ultra proprietary version of the SMIL protocol, the fun of using SMIL has been nowhere with us until then.
Paul Watson wrote:
the whole it has been a good experience
To me we are still very far from providing the look and feel of a desktop app (funny story here[^]). Too many round strips, inherent stateless protocols, servers which work better when the client browser is from the same company, ...
Paul Watson wrote:
Some guys go nuclear over the misuse of a byte or two in their C++ code. I go nuclear over people who output garbage HTML.
Weird. The only thing I despise about html these days is the horse power required just to browse a web page. Try to surf codeproject, zdnet, ... using a P150 PC. Shame, shame, shame. The point is not to use compression at the transport level (which still could do good), but promote better design with appropriate tools. In this area, the great thing about ASP.NET as a whole is not ASP.NET (or ASP+ as I like to name it), but the de facto use of a real programming language like C# instead of that raw vbee crap.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
Some guys go nuclear over the misuse of a byte or two in their C++ code. I go nuclear over people who output garbage HTML.
That's something I think I understand.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use.
It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
outputting HTML from custom controls is no fun what with all the C# slashes
Paul...you do know about putting the @ before a string right?
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
David Stone wrote:
Paul...you do know about putting the @ before a string right?
I do, use it when I can. I can't remember offhand now but there is an instance where it does not work, or causes trouble. But overall a nifty feature.
Still putting HTML into CS files is absurd IMO. Reading it out of XML/TXT files is also not exactly the best option. ASCX controls are nice that way, but have their pitfalls which means you resort to server/custom controls (just with the CS file) and then using HTML bites.
Anyway.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
brianwelsch wrote:
I find my day goes by more smoothly if I never question other peoples fantasies. My own disturb me enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
Still putting HTML into CS files is absurd IMO. Reading it out of XML/TXT files is also not exactly the best option. ASCX controls are nice that way, but have their pitfalls which means you resort to server/custom controls (just with the CS file) and then using HTML bites.
You forgot managed resources as a reasonable alternative.
My latest article: GBVB - Converting VB.NET code to C#
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Turini wrote:
You forgot managed resources as a reasonable alternative
How does that work? Got a link? Ta 
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
Vivek Rajan wrote (about the Matrix):
I assume they are using low colors because they want faster rendering using cheaper hardware... ...Cmon - atleast use 256 colors...
|
|
|
|
|
|
What prompted this survey were the discussions I'd had with many ASP.NET developers who had all tried the ASP.NET controls initially, then all given up in frustration at either the lack of XHTML support, bloated output (especially when generating style attributes), lack of support for Netscape, further bloatage caused by viewstate, or the feeling that in the end it's easier to just write a custom control than battle with templates in repeater controls. Obviously I've also spoken to ASP.NET developers who swear by the ASP.NET controls, use viewstate for all postbacks, don't care about XHTML and are happy to let evolution deal with the Netscape users.
I agree with David Wulff's comment that for simple stuff like labels they work fine, but for me I will only rarely use them.
Maybe we should all get together and create a CodeProject namespace of server side controls that work the way Mother Nature intended.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
I was thinking for long time to propose you a survey theme ... maybe that's not the right place to do it, but I want to avoid forgeting it. So the question could be like:
"What motivates the programmers to do their job?"
if you consider it valid, please let me know ... I have also some possible answers for!
Regarding asp controls, I consider them useful, and for normal needs they are doing their job well. I think the main idea with these controls from Microsoft was to bring a direction in the web development, more than offering complete solutions with them.
Regards,
Iulian Iuga
|
|
|
|
|
Iulian Iuga wrote:
What motivates the programmers to do their job
You mean like this?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ... something like that. I apologise for not looking at this survey, but it was running some months before I became member on codeproject.com. Anyhow, it was in 2000 ... now we are in 2003. I think will be interesting to run it again and compare the results. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Admit it, you made that up didn't you? 
David Wulff
"Without hopes and dreams we're directionless" - Anna
|
|
|
|
|
The old poll wrote[Why you became a programmer]:
[x] I made the mistake of saying I knew about PCs - now I'm the division's IT expert.
That's a fact in lots of 'professional' companies....
Olli
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot......
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) + ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif) = NULL :=> 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
Maybe we should all get together and create a CodeProject namespace of server side controls that work the way Mother Nature intended.
Now there is a project I a: like and b: can actually help out with.
Namespaces rock in general though. I cringe when I go back to ASP 3.0 sites.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
brianwelsch wrote:
I find my day goes by more smoothly if I never question other peoples fantasies. My own disturb me enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Could be an interesting project - just from the point of design, management, and administration.
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Who is this Netscape I keep hearing about?
Shawn Cicoria
shawn@cicoria.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
... so far have answered, "I don't do ASP.NET". Makes you wonder about the relevance of the poll when it doesn't seem make sense for a large majority of CodeProject-ians. 
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
It's 67% of poll takers, not 67% of CodeProject readers. That still means fully a third of members do use ASP.NET which is interesting in itself.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
