Reply to: Any ASP.NET 2 Experts here?

[mcquiggd]

Yes, thanks for taking the time mcquiggd.

I will take a good look at what you've posted and see if I can apply it.

It's a bad workman who blames his tools etc. but I do find ASP.NET completely bloody unintuitive and restrictive.

I have no problems with the .NET 2.0 framework itself - which I think is great.

Thanks again mcquiggd.

No problem - if it doesnt exactly fit your needs, or you need a more complete example say including images, textboxes, checkboxes in your row, then being able to retrieve their values for sending to your webservice, let me know and I'll update the code...

I think you'll find that once you 'click' with how the ASP.Net model works, you'll see it is certainly not as bad as people here are making out - in fact some of comments on here scare me, coming from people who allegedly have experience and are making a living out of working with the technology as 'specialists'... no wonder so much work is being offshored...

[TheMonkey]

It's a bad workman who blames his tools etc. but I do find ASP.NET completely bloody unintuitive and restrictive.

I have no problems with the .NET 2.0 framework itself - which I think is great.

my point exactly!

I'll just add that windows forms sucks too! If only Windows was structured like Cocoa on the Mac - that's scarily well designed!

[bogeyman]

Well I hope what was posted was helpful.. but I have to say that what you were trying to achieve is very simple... if you look at the code I posted it is basically down to attributes on a control and a single line of C# in the Code Behind.

Yes, thanks for taking the time mcquiggd.

I will take a good look at what you've posted and see if I can apply it.

It's a bad workman who blames his tools etc. but I do find ASP.NET completely bloody unintuitive and restrictive.

I have no problems with the .NET 2.0 framework itself - which I think is great.

Thanks again mcquiggd.

[TheMonkey]

eeeek check those 5k href's out...........tuning you called it???
Need a handler for those monkey

Yeah - all in the name of SEO. They do get the top enry on google for nearly ALL products searched which drives their sales to quite astounding levels!

[HankWangford]

Huge everything (look at the source):

Before TheMonkey: http://www.hificables.co.uk/

After TheMonkey's ASP.Net tuning: http://www.totalcycling.com/

Yes I know the HTML is tulipe - that was production's problem.

eeeek check those 5k href's out...........tuning you called it???
Need a handler for those monkey

[mcquiggd]

Some interesting and insightfull comments chaps.
I like the .NET framework, C# and VS.NET, but ASP.NET is just a big turd.

Perhaps it's my fault for not being willing to put in the hours getting to know the ASP.NET beast inside and out, but it seems stupidly over-engineered and (as Monkey says) over-abstracted.

Whatever the technology, I expect to be able to do simple things simply, and quickly, without having to spend weeks learning it's arcane ways.

Well I hope what was posted was helpful.. but I have to say that what you were trying to achieve is very simple... if you look at the code I posted it is basically down to attributes on a control and a single line of C# in the Code Behind.

[TheMonkey]

Huge everything (look at the source):

Before TheMonkey: http://www.hificables.co.uk/

After TheMonkey's ASP.Net tuning: http://www.totalcycling.com/

Yes I know the HTML is tulipe - that was production's problem.

[boxman]

Depending on what you're trying to do dynamically you might find that loading that one or more "dynamic" controls in advance (and opting to show/hide those Panels/controls) will achieve what you want to do.

In my experience (5 years C#/ASP.NET) most dynamic controls are loaded as the result of one or more logical steps. Clearly in a totally dynamic scenario showing/hiding Panel controls with controls on them isn't practical but I would say this is typically the exception rather than the norm.

Of course you can always persist values for dynamic controls in Session objects using bespoke classes as necessary. This may be preferable as you will no doubt have come across issues with huge viewstates and associated corruption.

Rob

[bogeyman]

Some interesting and insightfull comments chaps.

Thanks.

I have to say that for the moment (with deadlines looming) I've copped out and done the webclient stuff in PHP5 - even though all the backend is .NET 2.0 C#.

It took me about 10 hours to do this simple front-end in PHP5 whereas I've been beating myself up for over 10 days trying to use ASP.NET and all it's fancy controls to acheive exactly the same end.

I like the .NET framework, C# and VS.NET, but ASP.NET is just a big turd.

Perhaps it's my fault for not being willing to put in the hours getting to know the ASP.NET beast inside and out, but it seems stupidly over-engineered and (as Monkey says) over-abstracted.

Whatever the technology, I expect to be able to do simple things simply, and quickly, without having to spend weeks learning it's arcane ways.

Will revisit the ASP.NET version of my thingy when I have time and see if I can make it do what I want.

In the meantime, the PHP5 one is ready to demo - phew

[TheMonkey]

The GridView brings you pain.

I've reached the peak of Asp.Net knowledge as I've built nearly every type of application in the last 5 years. I've fully embraced the platform's capabilities and have built some massive, very well known web sites using it.

What I have learned is that I spend more time working around features than working with them. I have coined the term "over-abstraction" to cover .Net and have switched back to my old principles of KISS, which turns out to have been an eye-opener in recent weeks.

Again, I'll start a new thread covering this, but to steal a new-Labour phrase, I think we need to go back to basics to rediscover our roots.

Sorry foor any nonesence in this post - I'm typing one-handed and I'm covered in baby puke.

[mcquiggd]

Show me an ASP.NET "dev" who can answer my question and he'll have my full attention.

Fecking blaggers most of 'em. "Use a GridView!"

I'm not an ASP.NET dev by any stretch - but I am a software dev of many years standing and I know sh1t when I see it.

The GridView is very useful in specific scenarios. But, typically, a 'production quality' application will use a master / detail view on a seperate Page, normally due to the sheer number of Properties that need to be edited, and the client side Validation that should be applied, even before UI look and feel is taken into consideration.

For that, there are the MultiView, FormView, DetailsView, etc controls, which provide a DataBinding container for whatever TextBox, RadioButtton, etc controls you need to represent your UI properly.

Ideally these are created as UserControls to allow reuse... but that is not a requirement.

The Repeater, DataList and GridView - indeed any 'templated' Control are examples of dynamically created UI elements that support server - and client - event handling. The choice of which Control to use to use depends on your requirements - some offer two-way data binding, some are table layout based, some lighter weight but offer less built in functionality.

You can use the same approach as I outlined earlier in this thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/showp...6&postcount=33

... for handling events from dynamically created Controls within these naming containers... on PostBack you use the FindControl("ControlName") method on the naming container (accessible as a Parent of the Control that caused the PostBack) to retrieve values from a specific row within, say, a Repeater.


On my current project I have a pretty complex website layout for which I have to provide what is effectively a CMS to support input. It includes versioning, in-place editing (Ajax and TinyMCE), bindable images from an Entity that includes Alt Tags and the PNG data from a Property of the same object... selecting articles, pdfs, or images for the website is done in a WYSIWG manner... it has not been easy, but is has certainly been achievable with ASP.Net 2.

That includes custom implementations of ITemplate Controls, etc...

The point I am making, is that an awful lot is possible with .Net 2 / ASP.Net 2.

It just takes a LOT of effort to understand... and I certainly count myself amongst those who are still finding aspects of the framework that allow me to solve complex problems in an elegant manner...

[mcquiggd]

Bearing in mind the number of different potential devices, platforms, etc, the web has proven to be an adequate 'low' rather than 'lowest' common denominator.

However, imagine trying to create Amazon.com, as an example, without some means of maintaining state. You can also access Amazon from a mobile phone, PDA, web cafe, laptop with WiFi, friends PC, etc.

Internet cafes are another example of the success of using such a standard. You just need a web browser, and you have access to so many applications that do not require you to download additional software (unless Flash has been upgraded again!).

Intranet applications are a different matter. The whole point of a public internet site is you cannot guarantee what platform the content will be viewed on. You could not even take for granted that the correct version of the JRE is installed, and personally I don't want to have to download different versions for different sites on every device I might want to use...

So, the web is a good 'standard'... hence the W3C... but that standard must, and will, evolve... that is what we are basing our careers on.

[TheMonkey]

My personal view is that the web is for stuffing content. It's also a good delivery method for applications, but not necessarily a good platform to build the applications on.

I've seen an increasing shift towards pushing static content via Winforms / Java applications rather than dynamic content.

I'll start another thread shortly when I've had some coffee and some time to think about it.

[mcquiggd]

Perhaps start a new thread about your views? Might be an interesting discussion... HTML itself has evolved way beyond the original specification. SOAP is a workable solution to a specific problem. SGML / DTDs have given way to XML / Schemas. A stateless web has given way to a web where state is maintained. Java has evolved to include EJB, and other approaches.

Everything is an incremental improvement... to have persued a web strategy limited to one approach such as Java Applets is frankly a view that belongs in Light Relief...

[TheMonkey]

Yeah via half working hacks such as SOAP, AJAX and view states.

Why embrace and extend when something better should have been engineered for the purpose.

Java web start is how things should work.