With the asp.net MVC, we see a lot different view engines, like Razor, spark, webform etc.
I thought the idea of MVC is separating of data and view, I assume view part should be something that allows a designer to do some work, even after it is created by a developer. But I see now most if not all view engines introduce new syntax, not stick with html. The old web form, you can use "view designer" to see how a page looks like even with some code blocks, designer could at least move blocks and html elements around, but now with engine like Razor, you cannot even view a page in designer mode. So I don't quite get what is the point?
This came to me when I tried to search for a server side templating that allows end user do some changes on the page. I perfer something stick to pure HTML, maybe Spark is the one, but I am not sure. Please someone can give me some idea.
Thanks
Views are meant for that. It will not static design. Markup will be generated on fly.
If you take razor as an example, you will have the combination of c# and html as code in view page. So, as you may be able to understand now, you cannot see the actual design until the c# and html execution goes hand-in-hand.
Hope it clarifies a little!
Im looking to make the editor templates in my MVC application use HTML5 input types. The framework seems to get about 80% of the way there but there are a couple of things I can't seem to make happen (step values on numerics, placeholders, URL inputs, etc).
I'm sure that quite a bit of this is just me not knowing where to look, but
Is there a definitive list of what attributes I can use on View Models to provide the metadata used to generate the html?
Does anyone know of a project / nuget package that helps with this? I'm not opposed to writing something, but would rather use something that's already been tried and tested. Dean Hume's ASP.net MVC HTML5 Helpers Toolkit is close, but I'd like to put as much information in the attributes as possible and let the runtime do the work via Html.EditorFor (just a personal preference).
Thanks,
Joe
Check this out : http://weblogs.asp.net/rashid/archive/2010/10/21/integrate-html5-form-in-asp-net-mvc.aspx
See if it can help you get started.
i have been reading this interesting article which is increasing my every growing confusion about best practices in MVC
link text
and there is a very hot debate about wither to inject JavaScript and HTML Tags using an HTMLHelper or putting it in User control.
what do you advise ?
in case you advise putting it in user Control, how can you make it generic and use it in different views and keep testability ?
Concerning javascript I would say that none of the methods seems suitable for me. I am a big fan of unobtrusive javascript, so I always prefer just adding a script tag in the beginning of my page and not writing a single line of js in helpers or user controls.
"Injecting Javascript into markup" is bad idea for me. I prefere to separate scripts and markup as much as it possible in every concrete situation. I'm using HtmlHelpers for creating custom HTML tags or set of logically combined HTML tags. As for UserControls I'm using it primarily for creating Views, which can be returned for AJAX request and at the same time could be included into "normal page" (non-AJAX requests).
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.
I am new to MVC and I notice that the view pages can look pretty nasty with all the intermixed script tags. Does it make sense to generate the HTML in a method in the view code-behind and then just insert the string result of the method as a single bit of script?
For example: <div><%= GenerateTonsOfHTMLFromSomeIEnumerable() %></div>
Is this contrary to the MVC philosophy? Dumb for some other reason, like performance? Does it have any merit?
It's a matter of practice.
Here's an interesting read.
Codebehind files are evil
Codebehind files are not evil
Also there's an interesting article by "Rob Conery"
Inline Scripting and Code behind
So, the choice is yours. It depends on your application architecuture, how you want to structure it, blah-blah...
I guess the advantage with views without codebehind is that is is much easier to switch to different viewengine which doesn't support codebehind.
Though there will be some amount of work, but still it will be much seamless.
OK, chalk up another for the learning curve. I think I might have found the answer to my own question...
ASP MVC lets you install your own custom view engines which you can use (instead of the default ASP.NET view engine). So you can control the html generation. Once you know what to search for, its easy :)
Here's a good place to get started: Custom View Engine Example
#Rajesh - Thanks for the great links!
I wouldn't. You just need to forget about the codebehind file, seriously. In fact in MVC Framework RC1 by default there is no codebehind file for your views. Whatever c# processing you want to go on to render your view you can do it inline with your HTML. If you are thinking about doing some data processing, do yourself a favor and put it in the controller.
This is a paradigm shift, its best to just break your old habits now.
You can use code behind as well. It is only a matter of style preference.