I am just new to MVC, we are building a massive system and have alot of namespacing in our site.
Where is the standard place to store files (CSS, Images, .JS) etc?
Would it be good to put them under the Content folder in sub-folders to their namespace or drop them in with their respective parent files or both.
The default project structure includes a Content folder for CSS files and a Scripts folder for JavaScript files. A lot of people use this existing template, especially since a lot of Nuget projects may rely on this.
I personally like to put all of the content in a Content folder, and have a subfolder under this named Css and Scripts. It's really a matter of preference though. Do whatever is consistent and well-organized. That will be the key to making the application more easily maintainable.
Its better to put it in saparate folder as Script(js file) at root level.
Add sub folder in content folder for Images and Css etc.
we can also create multiple controller and views for each section of your project.
like for login section you can add Authentication Controller.
we can also use Helper class for adding general function and use it in every where.
you can see following link
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd410120(v=vs.100).aspx
Related
First of all, I do understand, that MVC 3 default template's Content folder is not a mandatory css/img/etc. store folder.
I still like the concept of Content folder to be a "reference-able" storage location for images and style sheets and other possible stuff (I also place entire jQuery custom controls into Content's sub folders with .js files in them).
I haven't used MVC Areas thus far in my projects, since I didn't have a complex enough one's. Now it's time.
And I am thinking about placing a separate Content folder in each Area. Will it work? Is there something "bad" that can turn out of it? Like me not being able to reference resources in it via ../Content/MyControl? Or is MVC Area just like a root of the project, but a separate one?
The area is almost just like a separate project (but not really). You can either use
Url.Content("~/Areas/AreaName/Content/FileInfo");
or
<link type="text/css" src="RootOfSiteInfo/Areas/AreaName/Content/FileInfo"/>
There should not be any issues not being able to reach the static content, though personally I leave everything in the root content folder (single point of storage) since many times CSS and the likes are shared in our projects across areas.
I see that ASP.NET MVC generates a Content folder by default, which stores the site.css file. I have a site that uses some image files and XML files in order to do its job, yet I do not want to have those files as embedded resources. Should I just put the files in the solution within the content folder? Should I turn off the "Do not copy" build option on each resource since I will need to deploy the files to the website? Or should these files not even live in the solution and be loaded from the file system?
It's a good approach to add all your files/resources to the solution (at least you can see them in VS ;-) Other developers won't be surprised that your solution really needs some other files.
If those files are the 'content' of your website (like css files) then you can store them in the Content folder. It is up to you what folder structure you come up with. For example you might want to store your images in folder related to the modules of your application, or just all in the images folder. MVC doesn't enforce any particular way of keeping your resource files.
Just leave the Build Action set to Content and Copy to Output Directory to 'Do not copy'.
You might want to take a look at T4MVC project (also available as NuGet package) which will help you in keeping urls to your images / files compile-time safe.
I will like add conventional HTML page under VIEWS folder (in ASp.NET MVC) page.
I have added the route exceptions as mentioned below.
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.htm/{*pathInfo}")
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.html/{*pathInfo}")
Although it does work when I put the html files out of VIEWS folder but I get Page not found 404 when I put those in VIEWS folder. I am also unable to browse the VIEWS folder by setting directory browsing option in IIS.
Please help me on HOW to access HTML file from VIEWS folder.
I think that it's a mistake to mix your HTML content with your views. I'd suggest that you create a separate static folder under Content and put your HTML there. You can create an analogous directory structure to your view structure if necessary for management. Then you don't need to do anything special in order to able to reference the files. You can even, then, open them up to editing with Contribute, etc. by people who are allowed to modify static content.
+-Content
+-Images
+-Static
+-Account
+-privacy.html
+-refunds.html
+-Styles
Usage:
<a href='<%= Url.Content( "~/Content/Static/Account/privacy.html" ) %>'>Privacy Policy</a>
The default Views folder has an Web.config file that explicitly gives 404 errors for all requests. You just need to edit and enable for HTML files (or all files, but then people might snoop).
Does there exist a method when publishing an ASP.NET MVC application to completely remove the .aspx view files (and if possible .master too) by compiling them into the application DLL as resources?
The published application would just be the /bin folder, Global.asax and web.config, a default.aspx if needed, and whatever is in the /Content folder. All the views would be contained in the MyProject.dll file.
To clarify I don't mean where every .aspx is overwritten with a 1 line dummy file referencing the correct resource, but where those files can be eliminated entirely in the published app.
The goal here is to simply change management and all the auditing and layers of people surrounding it - one file gets deployed, that file replaces the existing file, and no messing around with a stack of .aspx files that have to be added/removed/updated (yes, SVN or a similar solution handle that problem instead, but management politics prevent this).
Is this what you are looking for?
It's possible with the web forms view engine but you'll have to extend the path provider yourself.
Here is a question here at SO about the same thing:
Using VirtualPathProvider to load ASP.NET MVC views from DLLs
If you use the Spark view engine, it already has additional path providers built in.
The documentation can be found here:
Adding a view folder to config
It allows you to locate your views inside a DLL as an embedded resource, somewhere else on the file system, using the default virtual directories, or plug in your own custom provider.
Out curiosity I was wondering if there was a logical reason to have the Scripts folder not a sub folder of the Contents folder in an ASP.NET MVC project. The Contents folder typically contains your style sheets and images and for some reason it would seem natural to me to also include the Scripts folder in there as well.
Possibly because scripts could be denoted as providing more functionality than style and design items, so it could be considered a portion of your business logic.
The scripts and content folders are containers for client-side consumed files. They don't affect your MVC applications in any way. You can rename and move them around as you see fit, provided you update the URL references to them to point to the new path.
Having said that, I personally tend to rename these to js and css mostly because this makes my URLs shorter and easier to read and understand.