I'm trying to build a basic website, but that doesn't limit my ability to add complexity later. I am a complete newb and have no prior programming experience. I'm very confused as to the role of web editors (e.g. Kompozer) vs. web frameworks (e.g. Rails, Django). For what purposes are each useful for? What makes sense for quickly building a basic, functional website that can be more professionally developed later on?
Kompozer is a WYSIWYG that allows you to drag and drop HTML elements and create your website with buttons, dropdowns and menus. You can view the code it generates and modify it if you need to.
A web framework you would typically not use a drag and drop type editor, but just type code into something that looked like an advanced Notepad. A web framework typically removes a lot of the grunt work and allows you to organize your logic separately from your design.
Basically, you would use a program like Kompozer if you wanted a simple website that didn't do much in terms of functionality. You would use a web framework for doing some heavy lifting with some custom programming... for example if you wanted to design a web application that did calculations based on the food you ate today and gave you dieting information, or where you could login and manage different types of equipment etc...
Related
Building an MVC web application. Will be a single page app highly driven by javascript (require.js, pager.js, jquery, knockout, etc).
This application would have its own built-in pages, controllers, etc - and would need to be able to accept external plug-and-play functionality as well.
Ideally, I could just drop a .dll from another MVC web app into the main app and it would inherit not only the dropped in app's controllers, but would also bring in its web files (.htm, *.ts, *.js, *.css, etc).
Imagine having a home page with tiles for each installed dll. Referencing a new dll would add the app's tile to the home page - which is an entry point into the app.
Each plug-and-play app would need to adhere to our routing design (for MVC controllers and PagerJS).
Lastly, each app would need to be able to share user login data.
I know my questions are a bit broad, but I just wanted to get some ideas and see where it takes me.
MvcContrib has introduced Portable Area that is a set of reusable multi-page functionality can be dropped into an application to provide rich functionality without having to custom build functionality that is literally the same in every application.
This could be considered a plug-in or add-in type of functionality. The portable portion of this approach is that the area can be distributed as a single assembly rather than an assembly and a host of other files, like views or other html assets that need to be managed and maintained over time.
By making a portable area totally self contained in a single assembly, this should allow for easier reuse and upgrades to the area. The challenge for doing something like this has been how do you allow enough control over the User Interface by the application yet still allow the actual views to be packaged with the logic.
The description above is a part of a popular project in CodePlex which could help you to understand/use the technology behind the concept of Plug-able MVC application.
ASP.Net MVC Portable Areas via MvcContrib is a post by Eric Hexter that describes Portable Area in detail.
Instead of using server side MVC like Ruby, Python, PHP to build very complex websites, why should not we split our website into multiple modules, and build each with client side MVC like backboneJS, EmberJS. In this case, we will use PHP / Ruby for creating webservices alone, which will serve data only.
Each module now act as small web app. If we link each other, they will perfectly look like a complex web app.
I visit many websites (like github, groupon, stackoverflow etc...) and they can be built or adopted to this approach. But i am not seeing this kind of approach. Does this approach has any problem on this kind of websites?
Was to long for a comment
I guess the tricky part is indeed the point you mentioned
f we link each other, they will perfectly look like a complex web app.
Because each MVC framework uses a different approach to tackle usual problems you have in modern web-apps, like routing, data binding, application state and rendering DOM elements, so I think you would end up having multiple frameworks doing tasks that overlap substantially, thus forcing you to deactivate or disable some of the built-in functionality of one or the other framework making your frankenstein-app :) very difficult to maintain.
A good example is jQuery-mobile & ember.js, both have a routing system, jQuery uses the DOM to hold state ember.js holds it's state completely in javascript which is much faster. I had a similar problem with a project using jQuery-mobile & ember.js and this forced me to decide for one of the routing systems, I took ember's and deactivated jQuery's wich then let with just a bunch of custom mobile-looking components on the side of jQuery-mobile. Finally I removed jQuery-mobile using ember.js only and CSS for the mobile-looking app.
If not because of a concrete requirement, IMHO your best bet is to have just one very good, flexible and opinionated framework (personally I prefer ember.js) and create the modules you mentioned with your only choice.
Hope it helps.
As of now we can say that most of the applications are forced to put in more effort in its UI/UX and hence the dependancy on server side is becoming very less.
I have personally used backbone for my latest work and this has been great. The speed of the entire application can be noticed from the beginning. Ive been using PHP for the past 3 years and i can definitely vouch that backbone and other MV* frameworks are better.
Combined with CSS frameworks such as bootstrap, backbone can be an extremely organised and elegant applications.
All said, getting your head around models,views,routers,collections can be a headache. This is something which has vast possibilities and its only getting started.
Ive compiled a tutorial based on lots of tutorials present and has published at http://goo.gl/nJumC.
So many video tutorials are also available.
Only per-requisite is that one should have good knowledge of javascript and jquery methods and functions. Beginner knowledge in these will only make your task of learning backbone difficult.
Oh yes. I got my answer.
From google groups:
I think one of the reasons is javascriptless user-agents — i.e. search
engine crawlers and users with NoScript turned on.
I hope, these are real problems why websites still using Server Side MVCs.
When websites don't know target audience, they can't predict how well it will run on client side. So they should rely server to build much of their content.
And think, if stackoverflow was designed using client side MVC's to build much thier content, no one can't reach stackoverflow posts using google search.
From wikipedia under "Search engine optimization" section:
Because of the lack of JavaScript execution on crawlers of all popular
Web search engines, SEO has historically presented a problem for
public facing websites wishing to adopt the SPA model.
I think that is the shift we are heading now; I am not really sure about you but I noticed far more Client Side MVC Web sites. Anyways, you can also take a look at this ....
http://backbonejs.org/#examples
in my view, except the learning curve, it is pretty neat to develop using Client MVC and Web APIs using JSON/REST
I'm working on application with some sort of CMS features. I need some pages to be editable. For instance:
you can edit a text block right in your browser
you can add and remove different modules to your page
For instance, if I have a main page I may want to edit welcome text.
If I have a sidebar I may want to add/remove new modules to the sidebar such as:
email subscription module
social network (facebook, twitter, etc) links block
text block
My application may have several pages, not only one.
I want to keep it simple and I'm looking for the right approach/examples/existing tools.
What's the best pattern / third-party solution for ASP .NET in order to implement this and keep it simple?
If you want to use ASP.NET MVC I think the best solution is to look into Orchard. It's really easy to get up and running, has a rich set of existing modules and building a module from scratch is really easy. This was actually started by a couple of Microsoft guys and then spun out into it's own open source project. http://www.orchardproject.net/
I was wondering this for quite a while and haven't really found an answer for this yet.
Why would you use Backbone.js exaclty inside a Rails application? Is it to extend functionality, have a more MVC pattern for your JS, build better API's...?
At the moment I can't see a reason why you would want to use it for something, because I don't think I understand the concept of Backbone.js
The big advantage of rails is that you have one platform and one language that you use that will handle the server-code and can generate the client-code (using the views).
Undoubtedly this theoretical advantage quickly starts slipping once you want to improve your user-experience with javascript and jquery. So actually you still have to learn two languages.
But still: all your models, business-rules, ... is handled on the server-side in Ruby. This also means that the server always has to be reachable.
What a javacript/client MVC (like Backbone.js, Sproutcore, ...) can offer you is a more native application feel. A single web-page application, like e.g. Gmail.
Depending on your requirements there are some very valid use-cases for such a platform. E.g. in places or devices with low connectivity it could be very useful (with HTML5) to have a web-application that does not need to be "online" all the time. It could save data and edits to the local storage and sync back to the server/database when the device is back online.
But, there is a big disadvantage when developing client MVC applications in combination with Rails: you will have to do some double development (it is the same when you are using flex/silverlight). Your models will need to be defined both on the server and on the client. I can imagine that some improvements could be made, like on the client MVC you are actually using presenter-classes, which on the server-side could be stored in different models/tables. But still there will be duplication of logic, models, ...
So that's why I think that for most applications, at the moment, it is not wise to switch to some client MVC framework. It will be a lot more work.
But when you do need the look and feel of a real native application, or a one-page-web application, then a javascript client MVC framework is the way to go. And if you do need a client MVC framework, I would propose Sproutcore.
To simply ajaxify your current rails application (reduces load-time of every single page), take a look at pjax-rails.
(better late than never - hope this is useful to someone)
The description on backbonejs's website seems like a lot of words thrown together without much meaning. There is a big hype around it but what's all the fuss about?
The premise behind backbone is that modern day, single page web apps (think gmail) quickly become a very complex interaction between syncing dom elements, UI events and the backend. You could easily find yourself storing data within the dom elements, and then having to somehow extract the data again to update the database. If you don't structure your code very carefully, you'll quickly end up with spaghetti code full of complex bindings, or code without backbone.
Using backbone's models, collections and views gives you a well thought out structure to work within, allowing you to build large apps without being overwhelmed by their complexity. What's more, it ties in beautifully with a restful backend.
I'm frustrated recently by all of the choices that Microsoft offers to develop a web form. There is Sharepoint, Infopath without Sharepoint, ASP.NET Web Forms (with different controls for each runtime), ASP.NET without Web Forms, ASP.NET MVC framework, Silverlight, and WCF. Rendering and databinding technologies aside, there are a handful of different ways to pass data to and from the database (DataSets, LINQ, SqlDataControls, and many more) And those are only the ones that I can name in a minute or so - I'm sure I'm missing some very old technologies (did FoxPro ever get a web front end) or very new things in the process of rolling out of Microsoft Labs.
If I want to move away from using ASP.NET Web Forms and DataSets, what's the best way to move right now for data driven forms? What have you worked with that delivered good value for your programming time? I'm tempted to try working with LINQ to Entities and the new MVC framework, but I don't know enough about all these new technologies to choose where the value lies.
It's been said many times before - there is no "what's best". If any of these tools were best, than the rest wouldn't exist. "Data driven forms" is a pretty broad requirements statement.
They all have advantages and disadvantages in other areas, but all of them are capable of "data driven forms". MVC is lower-level forms - you will have to put in all the HTML and form processing yourself, however, it is much closer to dealing directly with HTTP, so lots of people find it much lighter-weight and easier to work with.
Silverlight has drawbacks in that it uses a diminished set of the .Net libraries, and requires the users to install browser plugins.
WCF would provide the data behind your forms, and would be very suitable if you're planning on opening up a public API or consuming the data in other ways.
You may find it beneficial to research each technology for even an hour each, and you would have a better understanding of which might fit your needs.
If you're using ASP.NET (which, when trying to code a regular website, feels a little "shoehorned"), then I thoroughly recommend trying Microsoft's MVC framework. It's a real breath of fresh air!
From a value per working-hour POV, it really depends on what you're doing. I can't say I've tried many web-frameworks, so I may not be the best metric, but using MVC everything fell into place naturally and I'm happy to stick with it for now.
I don't think ASP.Net Forms is something you need to "get away from".
MVC certainly has it's usefulness and when appropriate certainly makes a lot of stuff simpler.
But a well designed ASP.Net Forms app can be just as or even more useful in certain situations.
Myself I use MVC for public facing sites and Forms for internal/administrative stuff.
For a data-heavy page, I think web forms is a perfectly adequate solution. MVC introduces separation of layers which may make it harder for you to develop, since it forces you to separate the gathering of the data and routing it.
I'd say MVC is nice for having an interactive web page (Web 2.0-ish) but if you are simply showing a bunch of reports, or making users fill out forms - there's not much for you to take advantage of, IMHO.
As an alternative, try writing less code with built-in controls like Repeaters or DataGrids or even DataSets. Getting down to the core of your data flow allows you to be more productive by writing smarter code - not necessarily by writing less code.
In the end, I've found that I put together my own "framework" that does exactly what I need. I get HTML directly from a custom control. These controls simply format the data being fed by procedure calls to my custom Database access class. And yes, these are all served up with web forms or http handlers (ASHX) and a little bit of jQuery.
So while it's not glamourous, it gets the job done faster and better - by developing code that is fine-tuned to my business, not to some abstract software design pattern.