Is it possible to change around the folder organization to the following and still have MVC work.
P1
Controllers
Models
Views
P2
Controllers
Models
Views
etc..
This looks a lot like the new feature area's which is available in MVC 2 though it is currently in preview and will be release with VS 2010.
If you want to do it yourself without using areas then check out this article on view engines
as said before, the Areas feature is what you are looking for.
If you are using vs2010, then although you have MVC2, you don't have the tools for creating the areas - these are only available on vs 2008, when you install the MVC2 rc
to make it happen follow the instructions at the following link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee671793%28VS.100%29.aspx
as you can see the menu options are missing so:
download the example project from there.
build the directory structure at your solution according to the example
change the AreaRegistration.cs to match your area name
add AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); at the RegisterRoutes function at the global.asax, right after the IgnoreRoute
NOTE: the namespaces shuold contain .Areas.
for More explanations search at stackoverflow for asp-net-mvc-2-beta-single-project-area-registration-getting-http-404 (since this is the first time i post an answer - SO doesn't let me append more then 1 link, go fugure..)
Hope this helps
Should be doable, I think the default folder structure is just a suggestion. I've seen before in some documentation that larger projects would likely be split up differently, possibly even among multiple assemblies.
The only thing I would think would cause some trouble would be the views. Since controller actions are mapped to them only by file name. I know there's some way to change them, but I have not had to do so yet.
You can create your own viewengine to solve the paths. That sounds like a very strange idea, but the ViewEngine class is actually responsible for 2 things: locating a view and rendering a view to the httpresponse. The thing you have to change is the locating part, you can just inherit the default aspxviewengine and change the view locating part.
Related
I have been looking for an solution for structuring my MVC5 project, but have not found anything yet.
What i look for is. I have an Main Website, which off-course has it's own Views, Scripts and Controllers, but what is special is that i like to have sub Website projects which add an menu point in the main page, but the sub website also contains it's own Views, scripts and Controllers( I have tried to draw a picture of what i'm talking about ).
The point of this is to have an structured in a easy way. But also to reuse the same views in a framework way.
You should be able to define an area in another project, found an article that explains in detail how it is done in MVC3, it should not be very different in later versions since areas and routing haven't changed a lot.
http://nileshhirapra.blogspot.no/2012/02/aspnet-mvc-pluggable-application.html
Update: you do not actually need to set up the project in the Areas folder, but you need to copy all content like views and scripts/css into there before being able to use it in the main application.
If you want these sites to actually be separate websites but only look similar, then that is what you'd need to set up. You'd probably want to decide on a single-sign-on scheme for that.
Does MVC4 remove the MVCContrib requirement to achieve portable areas? Or is that still required?
I gave it a shot w/o MVCContrib and unfortunately I'm stuck with a typical "The view 'Index' or its master was not found or no view engine supports the searched locations." exception.
The list of searched locations includes "~/Areas/Inbox/Views/Default/Index.cshtml" which is technically correct, but it's just not finding the view.
Some explanation:
I have a main MVC4 application and a "plugin" (if you will) MVC4 app that contains an area called Inbox with a controller and view named Default. I reference this plugin app in the main app and I can hit a breakpoint in DefaultController's Index method where the View is returned - so I know the main app is engaging the plugin app and routing the requests to the proper controller and all that. When not running, if I cursor over the return View() statement in DefaultController the balloon shows the desired view, it's just not found at runtime.
Has anyone encountered this? I'm sure it's something really simple and a stupid oversight on my part, but after hours of trying, I can't find a solution. Thanks in advance!
MvcContrib is not a part of MVC, so no. MVC4 does not include Portable Areas. MvcContrib is not like MvcFutures where it's likely that at some point the code will be rolled into the main project. This is code that is contributed by third parties.
For each view, edit the Properties and set the Build Action to Embedded Resource.
I've inherited an MVC3 project that has a large number of ASPX views that I would like to convert to Razor. This question => Aspx to Razor syntax converter? is similar to mine, and it helped me find a bunch of options for converting the views themselves, but I'm unclear on the steps I need to take in addition to converting the views.
The first known limitation of Telerik's razor-converter is "The tool only works with views and does not deal with the project structure and master pages". This tool claims to be able to convert master pages as well, but it doesn't look like anybody beyond the developer has ever used it.
I think these are the steps I need to take:
Use a utility to convert the views
Convert the master pages manually (how do I do this?)
Modify the project structure (what needs to be modified?)
Delete the ASPX files
Test the application (any specific gotchas I should look out for?)
Are these the right steps? Can you help me with my questions on steps 2 and 3?
I have only tried this on one solution and the actual conversion did a fairly good job. I downloaded the Telerik converter project, compiled it, and then converted my projects using these command lines:
aspx2razor C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject\*.ascx C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject -r
aspx2razor C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject\*.aspx C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject -r
aspx2razor C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject\*.master C:\Development\MyProject\MyWebProject -r
I only needed to go back to add an #include for a namespace here and there, and to add a few parenthesis to force the Razor view engine to recognize my inline code properly. This was also a fairly simple solution, so YMMV. But even if it converted 80-90% of your views successfully, it's that much less manual work which you would have to perform yourself. From here, you could also create a _ViewStart.cshtml file and make a few minor adjustments to take advantage of Razor-specific layout features. (Check out Scott Gu's post on it here: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/10/22/asp-net-mvc-3-layouts.aspx)
The big issue I had was trying to reconcile the file changes with source control. Since the classic MVC view engine uses .aspx, .ascx, and .master extensions, I had to manually add the .cshtml files to my MVC web project and source control then remove the old versions. It wasn't difficult, just time-consuming.
In addition, you may need to add all of the necessary web.config entries to support the Razor view engine as well if your project was created using MVC 1 or 2. Projects created with MVC 3 should already have these entries in place, even if it was not originally created as a Razor site.
We recently upgraded a project to MVC 2 and we'd like to use Areas but there is an issue.
We have created a new area, setup a controller, configured a route, and created a view in the correct location. When we run the code it successfully finds the route and hits the controller but when it goes to render the view there is an exception.
The web forms view engine doesn't seem to be looking in the Areas section for views. The error we're seeing is:
~/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.aspx
~/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.ascx
~/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.aspx
~/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.ascx
When it should be:
~/<AreaName>/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.aspx
~/<AreaName>/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.ascx
~/<AreaName>/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.aspx
~/<AreaName>/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.ascx
~/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.aspx
~/Views/<ControllerName>/<ViewName>.ascx
~/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.aspx
~/Views/Shared/<ViewName>.ascx
This would indicate that it's still somehow using the MVC 1 dll but we've looked carefully and can find only references to the V2 of MVC (there was a V1 reference in xVal, a third party DLL, but fixing that didn't make a difference).
I can only imagine that we missed something when we did the upgrade or that we've got some unusual edge case because there doesn't seem to be anything on the web that matches the problem we're experiencing.
What things could we look at that might help us resolve this issue?
Thanks in advance for any help provided.
Cheers,
Zac
What things could we look at that might help us resolve this issue?
Make sure Area Routes are Registered AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); are registered first. Area routes need to be registered as well.
Make sure generated URL links have the area name included as one of the arguments when using ActionLink and other related URL helpers
Sometimes just delete and re-add the Area from scratch. Sounds silly, but it works.
The related SO question on the left hand side of this page may help. I have linked one I think may be of value
Trying to create a MVC User Control in the Release Candidate and I can't see to make one with a codebehind file. The same is true for MVC View pages.
Creating Views in the Beta would produce codebehinds...am I missing something?
Code behind kind of defeats the purpose of the MVC Framework. Functionality should be kept separate from the view, the MVC team felt that code behind pages went against this ideology and therefore removed them.
Your can create a custom helper method to create your control. Also I'm not sure if MVC has view components (Monorail/Castle) but that could be an option as well.
From ScottGu's Blog post:
*Views without Code-Behind Files
Based on feedback we’ve changed view-templates to not have a code-behind file by default. This change helps reinforce the purpose of views in a MVC application (which are intended to be purely about rendering and to not contain any non-rendering related code), and for most people eliminates unused files in the project.
The RC build now adds C# and VB syntax support for inheriting view templates from base classes that use generics. For example, below we are using this with the Edit.aspx view template – whose “inherits” attribute derives from the ViewPage type:
One nice benefit of not using a code-behind file is that you'll now get immediate intellisense within view template files when you add them to the project. With previous builds you had to do a build/compile immediately after creating a view in order to get code intellisense within it. The RC makes the workflow of adding and immediately editing a view compile-free and much more seamless.
Important: If you are upgrading a ASP.NET MVC project that was created with an earlier build make sure to follow the steps in the release notes – the web.config file under the \Views directory needs to be updated with some settings in order for the above generics based syntax to work.*
I answered this question here:
How to add a Code-behind page to a Partial View
Seems this wasn't particularly tricky, and is quite do-able
This answer worked for a Partial 'ViewUserControl' but the same should apply
Ok.
First: Add a Class file with the convention of .cs (i.e. view.ascx.cs)
Second: Add "using System.Web.Mvc;" to the class
Third: Change the Class to Inherit from "ViewUserControl<>"
Fourth: Add the following to the View's header:
CodeBehind="View.ascx.cs" Inherits="Project.Views.Shared.View"
Fifthly: Copy the files out of the solution and drag back in to reassociate the two together
Note: For this to work with a Normal MVC View you just need to inherit the class from "ViewPage"
The whole idea for ASP.Net-mvc was to get rid of the codebehind files...thats why asp web controls didnt matter that most didn't work.But with the changes of getting rid of the code behind comes with a different programming style..The idea is codebehind files are EVIL:
http://stevesmithblog.com/blog/codebehind-files-in-asp-net-mvc-are-evil/
the whole idea is to make sure people remember they are using asp.Net-mvc and not asp.et web pages. take alook at this link ,it explains it a little better:
http://blog.lozanotek.com/archive/2008/10/20/Visual_Studio_Templates_for_MVC_Views_without_Codebehind_Files.aspx
I think this tutorial is what you are asking.. but not really sure what you want..