Just read blog post of Maarten Balliauw.
Wanted to ask will
<%Html.Serialize("person", Model); %>
return bunch of 'don`t-stop-debugging-heavily-server-sided' RAD controls?
Is that's a good idea to include this?
If so - what kind of usage would be appropriate?
I view it more as a way of avoiding using the session to transfer data between actions than viewstate per se, and that's what I would use it for. Seems to me an ideal way to implement some wizard type functionality in which you want to carry the data forward through a series of actions before you persist anything to the database. There is, of course, the danger of overusing it I suppose, but as long as the framework doesn't automatically impose it on you, then I don't see the same dangers of viewstate popping up. With viewstate, you had to jump through hoops (and potentially break other things in the process) to avoid it.
We shouldn equate Base64 encoding with ViewState. I don't see the state of the view being serialized in that snippet. I see the state of the model. So describing that as ViewState For Asp.net MVC is very misleading.
Also consider this is opt-in and not automatic in any way. It's primary usage will probably be for optimistic concurrency as well as Wizard UIs where you want to store the users previous selections in the view as opposed to the Session or Cookie.
Related
I am not actually asking a question but rather an suggestion(or recommendation) on how to write code to fit nicely into Rails MVC pattern. Hope rails veteran or anyone familiar with MVC can give me some feedbacks.
I have an web app that talks to a RESTful api app via ActiveResource. It can fetch and update contents using API calls. It works perfectly. However, the web app does not have any models. The way it works is when user triggers an action(index,view,edit etc), the controller will directly call the REST api to fetch/update data.
My question is: Is it a good practice to do it this way or should I create models and populate data in there instead of directly calling the api? I was wondering if it is just a pragmatic compromise to MVC. I have just started working with Rails(and MVC) so I am open to any ideas, comments or recommendations on this
It's a bit of a catch-22 question. (I did wrote a huge answer but then deleted because it will be too tedious to read)
If you mean, can you implement the MVC pattern without a model, then the answer is no. The M means Model.
If they mean, can you use the MVC without using a model, then the answer is "yes", but it is no longer MVC, you have obliterated the the M i.e. Model.
I would recommend you to read MVC pattern in detail and then try to understand what your application actually trying to do.
http://c2.com/ is a very good place if you want to understand the design patterns.
A model is an object representing data or even activity, e.g. a
database table or even some plant-floor production-machine process.
A view is some form of visualization of the state of the model.
A controller offers facilities to change the state of the model.
Now in your case (it seems): you do have a data coming through via api so I would suggest populate the model properties and propagate it across.
Also Considering Pragmatic Compromise in MVC Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Omitting the use of Model in MVC do-not sound like a good idea, and it no longer remains MVC.
Having said that It seems from your point of view you are trying to say that Rails isn't necessarily strictly MVC hence why not use the way you want to :) but I will suggest to keep the integrity of MVC (and follow the purist approach).
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ModelViewController
Good read: jeff Atwoods: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/05/understanding-model-view-controller.html (Feel free to skip the asp.net part)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1242908/in-english-what-really-is-model-view-controller
sums it all :) source is mentioned above.
"The model consists of application data and business rules" (wikipedia)
A model is essentially a table in your database locally.
If you're not storing any data, not validating any data, then you don't need a model.
If you want to clean up your code, maybe put some functions in a helper or in /lib
Is there a way to keep information between post backs in MVC2 without utilizing Session variables or the query string?
You mean like the view state from .NET Web Forms? Technically there is, although it isn't recommended - you're much better off utilizing models and posting the model data to the server and pushing the model back into the view.
This will work well but if you're needing something as stateful as the WebForms ViewState, I would recommend doing your project in WebForms or use the session to save your models.
Edit: Build your form that posts (or gets) data back to the same page. Then in your controller, have a method like this.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult LoginUser(LoginViewModel model)
{
//work on the model here
return View(model);
}
This will push the form data that the user just submitted back into your view. Then have an Html helper like this in your view.
<%: Html.TextboxFor(m => Model.Username) %>
There are a slew of excellent resources on the web about using html helpers with models. Google around and you'll come across them.
You could use Hidden Form fields to POST the values back to the server with each form submission.
Other alternatives include a cookie or Http Cache - what is stopping you using session?
As a high level concept, you should rely as little as possible not only on Session to store your state, but on statefulness in general in a web application. The idea is that the web itself is stateless by design, and when designing software on that paradigm the software should be designed to embrace a stateless nature.
More specifically, using a ViewModel gives you a strongly typed representation of the data needed for your view to pass down to the client. Pieces of that data which hold information about the state of a given request which can be made from that view can be added to the view in probably a number of ways, but the two most immediate ones are:
As hidden form field elements
As parts of URLs for requests
Check out the NerdDinner tutorial for a standard approach to using either ViewData or a strongly-typed ViewModel. Some Google searches will, as always, yield more information and tutorials. But note specifically where the tutorial uses the ViewModel properties in the view. These can be used anywhere in the rendering of the HTML, either in the HTML helpers or in manually constructing the tags.
Additional interesting reading regarding the statelessness of the web (and this whole not-as-new-as-many-people-seem-to-think REST thing) is the article: How I Explained REST to My Wife.
If your main issue with the Session variables is of a practical nature (want something that works for a single request, not needing to worry about cleaning it up etc) rather than a requirement to not use Session then use the TempData dictionary. It deals with putting information in the Session for a single request only and the framework will automatically remove it for you afterwards.
Is there any way to tell if a visitor to a site is new, or just the same one over and over again, for the purpose of a hit counter?
Sessions don't really seem to exist in MVC, so I know I can't really use them...
Is there any way to tell if a visitor to a site is new, or just the same one over and over again, for the purpose of a hit counter?
There's not a 100% reliable way due to the stateless nature of the web but for the purposes of a counter, setting a cookie and checking whether it's there or not is adequate for the most cases.
Sessions don't really seem to exist in MVC, so I know I can't really use them...
This is not true. You can use Session in ASP.NET MVC too. Although, in general, you should avoid server-side state as much as possible when you don't need it to ease scalability.
You can use sessions in ASP.NET MVC, but as Mehrdad points out, storing this kind of information on the server is not the way to go about it--use JavaScript cookies instead. And let your clients do the "heavy lifting".
Quircksmode has a great article on using JavaScript cookies.
Is it considered a bad practice to use code-behind with ASP.NET MVC Views? Got into a bit of a debate about this with my colleagues today and I was wondering the community's thoughts.
Obviously, this isn't an option when using another MVC like Rails, which makes me think it's relied on more as a crutch for those accustom to working with traditional ASP.NET Web Forms applications.
I would say that it's a bad practice to use code-behinds with ASP.NET MVC. MVC allows separation of concern where presentation logic (in Views) are separated from application logic (in Controllers). Using code-behinds will mix presentation logic and application logic inside the code-behinds, whereby defeating some of the benefits of MVC.
Certainly the authors of ASP.NET MVC In Action advise against it, and I agree. It isn't necessary, so why do it? In the early betas a code-behind file was included, but this was removed at RTM (or shortly before).
Typically, it simply encourages you to do more non-view work than you should in the view, as it is out of sight / out of mind.
I used code-behind extensively on my first ASP.NET MVC (Preview 3!) project - primarily for doing stuff like casting ViewData["foo"] into strongly-typed data objects, gathering view data into IEnumerables so I could loop across it, that kind of thing.
With the introduction of strongly-typed views, and pragmatic use of the (horrifically-named) Model-View-ViewModel pattern, I haven't missed code-behind at all since it was removed from the project framework just before the final release.
I now strongly feel that whatever processing you're doing in your view's code-behind, you are far better off modelling the result of that processing in your ViewModel, allowing the controller to perform the actual processing, and keep the view as simple and lightweight as you can. That'll let you test the processing logic, it makes the views easier to modify, and creates - I think - a much more elegant separation between transforming your data for display, and actually displaying it.
Yes the codebehind has long been the secret hiding place of business logic which as we all know should not be at the View level.
Code behind has been removed to stop naughty developers from being tempted.
I would recommend avoiding the codebehind in an MVC app at all costs. Using the code behind negates some of the values you get by using the MVC Framework such as separation of concerns, etc. You want to have your data access, business rules, type conversion and that sort of thing applied in the Model. If you find you need to convert your data types like Dylan mentioned, you may want to make ViewModels. The ViewModel would basically be the data from the actual Model you would like to display, in the format you wish to display it in.
Its probably best to avoid putting anything in the code behind when using MVC.
I would be interested to hear which part was being debated about, to go in the codebehind?
If you new to Asp.Net MVC, I really recommend spending some time going through the Nerd dinner example. There's a free EBook and source available here http://nerddinner.codeplex.com/.
Creating the simple demo from scratch is a great way to learn.
After doing this, it may shed some light on where the code you have in the codebehind, could alternatively go.
Note: If you do follow the EBook, grab the latest site.css file from codeplex, otherwise the virtual earth maps won't be aligned properly.
HTH
Ralph
It should be noted that "Code Behind" is a feature of the Web Forms view engine. It really has nothing to do with ASP.NET MVC itself.
For example, the Razor view engine in MVC3 does not even support it.
I would answer your question this way: If you cannot switch view engines without rewriting your controllers (or even your models) then you are not using the MVC pattern correctly.
Probably most of what you are doing in the .aspx.cs file should really be done before the model (or View Model) gets passed to the view. That said, in projects that I have migrated from ASP.NET Web Forms to ASP.NET MVC, I left a lot of the Code Behind in place. For example, I find it cleaner and more pleasing to use a Repeater control than to try to use a 'for' loop in Web Forms. I am still just iterating over View Model data after all. So why not? Separation of concerns is preserved (perhaps to a greater degree in fact).
I mean, why should "best practice" for Web Forms suddenly be the wrong way to do a Web Forms View? As a simple example, consider a Repeater that assigns a different CSS class to every second row of a table. Why should my controller (or even my model) care? Trying to put this kind of logic inline in Web Forms quickly devolves into tag soup and complete spaghetti. Now imagine something more complicated.
I have left Master pages in place that build the menus in the code behind. Again, all data comes from the View Model. I do not see why using GridView or other controls in this way should be a problem either.
I usually disabled ViewState in Web Forms anyway and did the data binding in "Init". Still, there would often be a small ViewState that I could not get rid of. I put some code in "Render" that moves this to after the form (it defaults to before). When moving to MVC, I sometimes left this code in. So, I have ASP.MVC sites that do indeed use Code Behind. I am just careful that it code that is specific to the view.
On new projects, I generally have found less of a need for Code Behind on most pages. Thankfully, view engines like Razor have made mixing code and mark-up in-line a lot less painful to write, read, and maintain.
I am sorry for possible misleading about the title, but I have no idea for a proper title.
Feel free to edit.
Anyway, I am using ASP.NET Web Forms, and maybe this isn't how web forms is intended to be used, but I like to construct and populate HTML elements manually. It gives me more control.
I don't use DataBinding and that kind of stuff. I use SqlConnection, SqlCommand and SqlDataReader, set SQL string etc. and read the data from the DataReader.
Old school if you like. :)
I do create WebControls so that I don't have to copy-paste every time I need some control, but mostly, I need WebControls to render as HTML so I can append that HTML into some other function that renders the final output with the control inside.
I know I can render a control with control.RenderControl(writer), but this can only be done in (pre)Render or RenderContents overrides.
For example.
I have a dal.cs file where is stored all static functions and voids that communicate with the database.
Functions mostly return string so that it can be appended into some other function to render the final result.
The reason I am doing like this is that I want to separate the coding from the HTML as much as I can so that I don't do <% while (dataReader.Read()) %> in HTML and display the data. I moved this into a CodeBehind.
I also use this functions to render in the HttpHandler for AJAX response.
That works perfectly, but when I want to add a control (ASP.NET Server control (.cs extension, not .ascx)) I don't know how to do that, so I see my self writing the same control as function that returns string or another function inside that control that returns string and replaces a job that would RenderContents do, so that I can call that function when I need control to be appended into a another string.
I know this may not be a very good practice.
As I see all the tutorials/videos about the ASP.NET MVC, I think it suite my needs as with the MVC you have to construct everything (or most of it) by your self, which I am already doing right now with web forms.
After this long intro, I want to ask how can I build my controls so I can use them as I mentioned (return string) or I have to forget about server controls and build the controls as functions and used them that way?
Is that even possible with ASP.NET Server Controls (.cs extension) or am I right when I said that I am not using it right.
To be clear, I am talking about how to properly use a web forms, but to avoid data binders because I want to construct everything by my self (render HTML in Code Behind).
Someone might think that I am appending strings like "some " + "string", which I am not. I am using StringBuilder for that so there's no slowness.
Every opinion is welcome.
You need to stop thinking in terms of "controls" and webforms. MVC is a completely different way of constructing applications.
I also hate the automatic renderers in WebForms, they produce horrible html that never makes any sense. However, you dont want to be writing your html in your codebehind and passing it around as strings, thats just nasty. Your presentation code is mixed in with your logic, AND youre writing HTML in c# strings!!!
So, MVC... Instead of "widgets" that do interacty things with codebehinds and postbacks, yours view ONLY display data and contain forms to allow you to post to the controllers.
Because of this, you can strongly type your views to a Type, and then access the data you pass to it from a controller via the Model property. The equivalent to UserControls are Partial Views (ViewUserControl) which can be used to modularise your rendering code for types. For example, you might make an Address partial to which you pass your Person's Address property every time you need it rendered. This way you aren't repeating html all over the place.
P.S. A single file for all your DAL?
I hope I never ever have to work on an app you wrote in this manner. If your application is string-heavy then something is wrong.
Agree with #sliderhouserules, the way you are using MVC framework is awful. You must forgot all your "old school" techniques.
You should never use SqlCommands, SqlReaders, etc. in the code of the pages. You should pass to the view only a model (e.g. View(bar)) and it will be better if you avoid usage of
ViewData["some magic string"] = bar
Every time when you will use "old school" technique 2 mans and 2 cats will be killed :).
Also it's better to use some ORM (Object-Relational Mapper) like Linq2sql, NHibernate, SubSonic, etc.
If you need in samples of good application design please look at SharpArchitecture. It has a very good architecture and implementation and may help a lot. It has one sample (with Northwind db) and one more sample will be added soon.
Also look at CodeCampServer. It has very good architecture too.
It's better to look at the code of these projects instead of looking videos because existing videos can't demonstrate good sample of architecture, just a simple usage of functionality.
About server controls, you may use them if they can be used without 'runat="server"', like PlaceHolder. And you may create them too, but you shouldn't load any data in them directly. If you don't want to copy-paste html you should review your code and you should refactor it. Every duplicated code should be moved to MasterPages of UserControls (ascx ones).
And once more, please spend some time to look at these samples. You'll save your nerves and time in the future when you'll need to update the app or fix something. At the first look they can be hard to understand but this is only at the first look.
Hope this helps.
#lopkiju, I think that the MVC pattern would serve you much better than your current WebForms solution if you want that much control over the output HTML.
You can use Web Forms this way as you already do, but it is not designed to be used this way, so it will be a pain.
More detail
In my opinion, read some articles about the Separation of Concerns (also known as SoC) principle. If you apply it correctly, it can save you many-many headaches when you'll debug your app, and also for those people who you work with (eg. those who may have to read or modify your source code).
My other tip for you is this:
You are right that you shouldn't do things like <% while (dataReader.Read()) %> in your View code. But perhaps there are better ways to make it more elegant than your current way.
I think you should consider using some sort of ORM for these purposes. (LINQ to SQL, or even NHibernate.) If you get it, it will be much simpler. So much that you may not want to use DataReaders directly again. :-)
What I recommend for you
Simply, read the NerdDinner tutorial, and build the samle app by yourself step-by-step.
After that, try to build a similar app that serves a different purpose by yourself while applying the same rules and design that you applied to the tutorial.
I'm pretty sure you have the expertise to do it, and after actually doing something with it, you can pretty much get the feel of it.
The tutorial also explains and includes the principles I mentioned above, which will be very much use to you.
If you want the ASP.NET MVC path, you can set up controls as ASCX and they will simply be tags filled by the controller. It may not be old school enough for you, however.
You can create your full UI in code behind, if you so desire. This can include creating the HTML in routines.
But, I would recommend, if you are sticking with ASP.NET, reconsidering the bind model over the DataReader.Read() and output + loop. It is not only old style, it is highly inefficient and hard to maintain.
ASP.NET MVC does create a much looser ASPX, as it is just a view. And there is a much greater separation of code and UI. But it will not fit with the old school model either.
Have you considered using micro-templates? Dave Ward has a good example of of a client side data repeater that is uses micro-templates for layout after making a call to a page method. This sounds like this is more in the spirit of what you are trying to accomplish and can still be integrated nicely with WebForms.
The side effect will be that you will not rely on passing around HTML and can isolate your presentation from your logic.