I just saw this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs8-l2Uo1cQ
And i got cuple of questions. I am about to develop quite a complex web site with alot of reporting data(like diagrams) and more, before i saw this video i was certanly sure that i am going to use MVC 4 forms authentication solution. But right now i am conserned. Is singel Page application suitebale for complex solution? or is it only suitable for simple portfolio websites?
No hate, its probably a stupid and obviouse answer to this question, but i am new to SPA
Yes. ASP.NET MVC 4 suitable for complex single-page solutions. I personally have used it when building large financial applications.
You might also want to check out Web API (which comes bundled as part of ASP.NET MVC 4) which is even better suited for single-page applications.
Related
i have been lately read some articles about BreezeJS. But till now i can't get my head around it.
What exactly BreezeJS is used for in details with examples not just words?
Can i use it in asp.net WebForms(most of tutorials target MVC projects), and if so how can i use it ?
Is there any concerns i need to take in consideration before i use it ?
I'm going to break your first question into two pieces:
Do you want to build a JavaScript / Single Page Application?
If you want a cross-platform application with a more fluid user experience, or have a need for offline operation, then Single Page Applications may be a good fit for you.
Why should I use Breeze in a Single Page Application? Can you cite examples?
John Papa has a great post about this that includes a few examples:
http://www.johnpapa.net/spajs04
You can use WebForms, MVC, or any number of other technologies to build a Single Page Application. For ASP.NET, people typically use MVC4 though. Here is StackOverflow post on that topic that might help:
webforms vs asp.net mvc for single page application - which to choose?
I've tried a few google searches and stack over flow searches, but this is proving hard to find than I thought. I need to provide justification to management for our shop to move to ASP.NET MVC 2. The biggest help would be any enterprise level sites or major web development shops that are using ASP.NET MVC 1/2.
Does anyone have a list or link?
I know Stackoverflow uses it, but some stats such as daily views would help too. I found the Jwaala case study here: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/case_study_detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000006675 . Aside from that, I'm having some issues finding some professional examples.
Thanks in advance!
Just found a few more case studies:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Search_Results.aspx?Type=1&Keywords=mvc&LangID=46#top
Could still use more links.
If your management requires a "...but THEY're doing it!!!" justification then you have larger problems.
If you're using the "...but THEY're doing it!!!" justification then you'll likely need much better reasons.
Hate to troll, but just saying that you'll want objective and project-specific reasoning. And if by "management" you mean business-management, then they need to understand that engineering details are best left up to engineering. The Art of War by Sun Tzu is full of advice along these lines.
...and to qualify this, I'm a web-developer working on a partial rewrite of a WebForms app. I'd love to be using MVC for this project, but the actual benefit of doing so doesn't match the cost--business is business after all, and the business-case must be considered.
If you do get stuck with WebForms then you can whip it into shape (what we're doing). With ASP.NET 4.0 (or a little inheritance trickery) you can get rid of the ID renaming; by building ViewModels, domain-objects, and clean Repositories you can avoid a lot of the cruft of WebForms--we have tight, explicit control over what WebForms generates. We've shrunk the actual content of our ASPX pages and their codebehinds by at least an order of magnitude by applying best practices.
Just remember, the tools won't make you a better developer, and unless you know what you're doing or what you're working with then you won't reap the benefits.
Dell is rebuilding its page from ASP.NET Webforms into ASP.NET MVC as Phil Haack is mentioned this on his blog ;)
I can not say if they use MVC 1 or MVC 2.
It seems that MarketWatch use ASP.NET MVC with Spark View Engine as listed here :
http://sparkviewengine.com/spark-in-the-field
http://www.marketwatch.com/
also an e-commerce webiste :
http://www.fancydressoutfitters.co.uk/
Check our sites www.reifen.com and www.bonspneus.fr. They handle pretty big traffic in germany and france.
We have used ASP.NET MVC 1 on these sites and still use (and enjoy) ASP.NET on other sites. Like others said: don't just go with ASP.NET MVC because it is in some way better. It is not. There is allways a situation where I would prefer one or the other.
Additional "live" ASP.NET MVC sites (some broken links)
http://weblogs.asp.net/mikebosch/archive/2008/05/05/gallery-of-live-asp-net-mvc-sites.aspx
I aim to try use DevExpress web server controls (which are awesome) in an ASP.NET MVC project (some articles I read on 'net seems to indicate the two can work well together).
I'm eager to start a new project using ASP.NET MVC, and I have been reading up a lot on ASP.NET MVC lately, but I'm not sure if I should invest a project in it. My concern is that it may turn out to be like LINQ to SQL, which is essentially been killed off since MS will not be providing updates.
Is ASP.NET MVC a viable solution to invest in my case?
Yes definitely ASP.NET MVC or any other MVC framework is worth learning. MVC pattern is all about seperation of concerns and helps you to keep your code clean.
If you like Devexpress control too much you could be disappointed because there is no server side control in ASP.NET MVC. But if you want to learn Web's underlying mechanism,HTML, Javascript , clean code, TDD ASP.NET MVC is a good way to go.
Learn first, experiment later
Asp.net MVC is a great development platform for building web applications, so it's definitely worth your time to learn it through and through.
But I suggest you first learn MVC framework and build at least one semi complex app with it and then start experimenting with mixing MVC with web forms controls. It is possible but as much you think you will gain you'll probably loose more. So I would be a bit reluctant and advise you not to match these. At least not on a Greenfield project.
In other words: presumably knowing Asp.net web forms would you suggest someone to heavy use dynamicly created user controls in their web pages if they're just about to learn the technology of Asp.net web forms? Probably not. Or mixing web forms with ASP pages on a greenfield project...
Instead try finding great either MVC-friendly server extensions or client-side libraries that will help you create rich web apps like ExtJS (I don't work for ExtJS llc, but I used the lib on a project in the past and liked it a lot). Using something like this you won't loose stuff from MVC and gain great user experience and rich functionality.
Seeing how you're asking the question on this site, I'd say YES!
DevExpress has a bunch of MVC specialized controls, that use Ajax to get data from the server via callbacks. You can see demos of the controls here:
http://mvc.devexpress.com.
I am not sure if you can use the web forms controls, my understanding is that you can't.
Also, regarding LinqToSql, you don't have to use that. I am using NHibernate for the data layer and it works very nice with MVC.
I worked with asp.net and web forms for more than 5 years and at least 1 year with the DevExpress controls for asp.net, but now I love MVC so much that I think I don't want to go back to the web forms anytime soon.
Hope this helped.
I've noticed a lot of talk about asp.net MVC lately, but I haven't come across a clear or compelling description of when, where or why I would want to use it over WebForms.
Let's say I wanted to build a small web application that allows a person to advertise some items online. The website will have 4 use cases:
Search adverts
View listings
View item
Place an advert
Let's assume:
I'm not particularly interested in unit testing my controller. The page will either render the list of items correctly, or it won't.
I am interested in more control over the HTML markup.
I'm not interested in using the latest buzz technology just for the sake of it.
I am interested in using the tool that is best suited to the job in terms of productivity, performance, maintainability & simplicity of the end solution.
I don't want to have to work around a bunch of nuances to get something simple to work.
So, my questions are thus:
What are the fundamental differences between the two models?
In which scenario is one better than the other?
What are the gotchas with asp.net MVC (I'm aware of the gotchas with WebForms)
For our sample app, what would I gain by using asp.net MVC instead of WebForms?
For our sample app, what would I lose by using asp.net MVC instead of WebForms?
Is it feasible to mix and match models within the same small application?
Thanks to anyone who spends the time to contribute an answer.
What are the fundamental differences between the two models?
WebForms try to mimic WinForms development by allowing you to reuse lots of pre-made controls, and by faking web application state via the hidden _VIEWSTATE mechanism.
MVC is a pattern designed to help you separate your data (Model), business logic (Controller) and presentation (View). It adheres more to the true nature of the web : RESTful URLs, stateless.
In which scenario is one better than the other?
In my opinion, for an intranet application making heavy usage of controls, WebForms can be useful at reducing development time, because thanks to the designer you can create your UI very quickly and let the framework manage the app's state automatically.
For any other project, especially a public website, even a small one, I think MVC is the way to go.
What are the gotchas with asp.net MVC (I'm aware of the gotchas with
WebForms)
I'd say there is some learning curve to fully understand the MVC pattern and its power. Also, since the framework is still in BETA you can expect the API to experience some minor changes before release.
Since JavaScript is not hidden from you in MVC, it would also require some time to learn if you're not familiar with it. jQuery greatly simplifies this though.
For our sample app, what would I gain by using asp.net MVC instead of
WebForms?
You'd gain better control over HTML markup and Javascript behavior, a cleaner separation of concerns and some easily testable codebase (even if you don't seem interested in unit testing it).
For our sample app, what would I lose by using asp.net MVC instead of
WebForms?
You'd lose the 'drag and drop' quick way of building your pages and the application state management.
Is it feasible to mix and match models within the same small
application?
In some ways, yes it seems.
I'd recommend watching this talk by Phil Haack, who gives a good overview of the framework and invites Jeff Atwood to talk about how he built StackOverflow with it.
He explains how SO is using some WebForms controls for CAPTCHAs which render themselves into the view.
The primary difference is that MVC is more like "regular" web development that the rest of the programming world uses, whereas standard ASP.NET was designed to make it brain-dead easy for Windows developers to become web developers. I learned web programming by learning Ruby on Rails, and MVC seems like it is becoming the .NET version of Rails.
MVC is much more oriented around standards compliance, unobtrusive javascript, and separation of concerns than regular ASP.NET. You'll need to understand how HTML and CSS work together. You'll learn a LOT more javascript as you master MVC. One of the biggest advantages of MVC to me is that you can use jQuery to do some amazing AJAX stuff easier and BETTER than you can in regular ASP.NET.
If you're just now learning web development then I strongly encourage you to learn MVC. You'll be able to transfer at least some of your new skills to other frameworks in the future.
If you're looking for which to learn to quickly get a web development job, then I'll have to strongly suggest ASP.NET.
Once MVC is RTM'd I think we will see a slow and steady adoption curve and as it matures MVC may become the primary framework for creating websites with ASP.NET. I hope so at least!
The biggest difference between ASPNET MVC and is WebForms is the lifecycle of an page, no difficult(unnecessary) postbacks, clean coding, enz.
There are no rules for that
???
REST-full website, Separation of logic
Design-time support, can't use third-party webcontrols
Please don't mix it together. If you really want to use the WebForms model you could use the MVP pattern, Billy McCafferty wrote exellent articles on that design pattern
I'm redesigning some of my applications from the MVP-pattern to MVC-pattern, not because MVC is better but I would like to use the newest techniques offered by MS(pattern itself is quite old).
I've read all the marketing speak about how mvc and webforms are complementary etc...
However it seems that all the blogs talk about is mvc and the only news coming out is about mvc.
Is Microsoft going to continue to IMPROVE webforms as a first class citizen or will it just be a supported technology as they move all their real efforts, developers and resources to mvc over time?
Is there any real evidence of any new exciting improvements coming to webforms in the near future?
You could do worse than take a look at Phil Haak's post from November:
The Future of WebForms and ASP.NET MVC
He points out 5 key things anounced under ASP.NET at PDC last year:
Core Infrastructure including scale and performance
Web Forms including issues with Client IDs, ViewState, CSS use, etc
AJAX
Data and Dynamic Data
MVC
Coupled with that, there are things that have been built as part of ASP.NET MVC that have already been released for webforms like the Routing module which is going to be great help in some of my projects, even without using MVC.
On top of those, there are also a number of changes coming in VS2010 that should help web developers using either WebForms or MVC, which would be good.
Bloggers tend to talk about what is shiny and "new", that's the way things go - you're bound to see a lot of words written about it because of that, although MVC is hardly a new design pattern - it goes back at least 30 years.
The same could be said of WPF/Silverlight - are they WinForms/WebForms killers? No. They are alternative offerings, with some benefits over the earlier way of doing things, but also with some differences/drawbacks.
I was at a conference (Remix 08) and Scott Gu said they will definatly be continuing to support both methods and that MVC was not appropriate for every application. Scott said there were a number of coming improvements for web forms model (although didnt say what they were).
The web forms model will not disapear because:
Web forms model is better for some types of applications, e.g. small apps, those requiring long processes that make use of view state useful
Many applications are using it
Many third party components developed for it
ASP.net implementation is not mature yet (although does seem pretty good so far)
Microsoft will probably announce a number of new features in PDC in a few weeks time.
Microsoft is finally coming to terms to one basic fact of development. You can't provide the ultimate solution to any problem. This is why MVC is being developed, and Scott Guthrie is clearly stating that MVC is meant for larger, more enterprise-y sites. Web forms will continue to exist and be developed as a simple, RAD-based approach to web development.
If you take a step back and review all recent improvements and additions to the Microsoft stack, you can quite easily categorize them between these two classes. For example:
Data access: LINQ-to-SQL vs EntityFramework
Remoting: WCF vs WebServices
LiveID: LiveID (web) authentication vs RPS authentication
...
I only hope that Microsoft will make this distinction clearer with time, because there seems to be a lot of confusion among developers as to what tool should be chosen for which task.
In conclusion, I think that Microsoft will keep on developing both because they cater to different developer profiles. Microsoft has obviously a lot of interest in growing its developer base as much as possible and to make the .NET stack as useful as possible.
I am going to go out on a limb here and disagree with the general idea that MVC is the "enterprise" framework here or is somehow the better of the two.
MVC is great! But just look at the name. It stands for "Model, View, Controller"... see the "view" in there?
Now look at the competition, "Web Forms"... see the "forms" in that one?
MVC does a great job in "view" type situations. For sites that publish content ("views" of information) MVC probably has an edge, especially for larger systems that need a lot of testing and very a formal design to support intelligent view switching.
For applications that interact heavily with the user via forms (data collection and data entry heavy apps) web forms has an edge due to the inherent use of form posts as a primary mechanism.
While you can do views with web forms and you can do forms with MVC, each has trade-offs. In the current state of MVC, I find that writing heavy data entry "views" is much more difficult and painful than with web forms... and I don't mean a little bit.
In the future I do expect to see MVC get better with dealing with data entry scenarios, but these scenarios will likely come at a pretty high price compared to doing those with web forms.
Neither is more "enterprise" level than the other as far as I can tell... what I'm most interested in going forward are hybrid applications that use MVC for the display and publishing end of the business while web forms are used more naturally for heavy data entry end... all in the same web project... I sure hope we see something like that.
Before word of the MVC framework started spreading, we spent a good deal of time at my company developing our own .NET MVC framework.
This was because we didn't want to be constrained by the limitations of the WebForms abstraction - we wanted to avoid the 'clunky' feel and user interface compromises that WebForms seems to impose on all by the most heavily customised applications. Also, we wanted friendly URIs and we wanted a better separation of front-end and back-end development than that offered by WebForms (we settled on an XML / XSLT architecture).
In my opinion, WebForms in fact offer a much poorer method of interacting with the user specifically due to the use of ViewState, PostBacks, etc etc that abstract the actual mechanics of HTTP from the developer - this gives them less latitude in how they allow users to interact with the system. The classic example is that because WebForms pages are almost always the result of a POST, if the user attempts to refresh the page, the user gets a nasty warning message from the browser. The pattern in the traditional web development world for dealing with this has always been to include a 302 Redirect directive in the HTTP Response, thus sticking to the original HTTP paradigm of GETs being for retrieving data, and POSTs being for sending data. Other, similar problems exist such as the inability to have two forms on a page (for example a login form to a website on a different server).
That said, for RAD, WebForms are brilliant. I'm currently developing the admin application for a webapp we've developed using our custom MVC framework, and I'm flying through since all I need is to display the contents of a load of database tables, and in some cases allow the user to edit them, in various different ways.
I think that if we need to convince ourselves that MS are going to continue to support WebForms - just think of all the ex-Windows developers. These are the people that WebForms was originally developed for, and they're not going away. Corporate developers will be your saviour if you're a WebForms fan.