As my posts start to appear on the list, I realize I'm having serious grammar issues this morning.
Apologies if the messages are difficult to read. I think I need a nap already. --s > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Allen > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] VS ASP.NET 2005 > > Yes, you can find a lot of dissatisfaction over the new web site model in > VS2005: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=project-less+web. The ASP.NET > team has said publicly that they should have include Web Application > Projects (a.k.a. the old model, a.k.a WAP) in the RTM release of VS2005. > Unfortunately, it didn't come around until after the outcry started in > earnest, and it was too late to make the ship date. > > I'm using both models. One application that was running under 1.1 was > extremely painful to migrate into the 2.0 model, so we decided to jump on > the first release of WAP. It's been a smooth ride. > > I have some reservations about the "project-less" web project. There are a > few scenarios where it will cause pain, even on new projects. > > There are also some aspects of the new model I like. There are some > scenarios where the 2.0 model will actually make a developer think about > design instead of hacking together code. This goes back to my post about > horizontal versus vertical coupling. In 1.1 we built one monolithic > assembly, and it was easy for WebFormA to have an intimate knowledge of > WebFormB. > > In 2.0 every form, user control, master page, etc. is an island unto > itself, > and can build into it's own assembly. This forces developers to think > about > writing base classes and interfaces and actually designing a contract > between a class and it's consumers. > > --s > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cowan > > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:04 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] VS ASP.NET 2005 > > > > I fear my original message turned into a debate about inline > scriting.That > > was not the purpose of my mail. My intention was to find out if anybody > > else is disattisfied with the new Web model and like me had reverted to > > the old model outlined here: > > > > http://webproject.scottgu.com/Default.aspx > > > > Or for that matter can anyone tell me why I should use the new model?? > > ThanksPaul > > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:33:41 +0200> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] VS ASP.NET 2005> To: ADVANCED- > > [email protected]> > Just out of interest, where has all the > > designer code gone? I thought it> was a bit weird it had disappeared... > > I'm asuming I can still get to it> somewhere and modify it?> > Cheers,> > > > > Ben> > > -----Original Message-----> > From: Discussion of advanced .NET > > topics.> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dean > > Cleaver> > Sent: 18 April 2006 09:11> > To: ADVANCED- > > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] VS ASP.NET > > 2005> >> > Paul,> >> > The partial class thing is nothing to do with the > > new Web> > projects - it's part of C# spec in general, and I think it's> > > > > a great idea - isolates the designer generated code from the> > user > code > > without having regions and warnings saying "don't touch!".> >> > I'm > also > > sticking to the old model though - primarily because> > of developed > > knowledge on how it works, and with a site> > adding up to a large > number > > of actual pages (about 300) which> > is capable of delivering about 8000 > > different looking pages> > via smoke and mirrors, I'm not about to > change > > it.> >> > Dino> >> > -----Original Message-----> > From: Discussion of > > advanced .NET topics.> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Paul Cowan> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2006 20:01> > To: > > [email protected]> > Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] VS > > ASP.NET 2005> >> > Hi all,I was just wondering if anybody else has > decided > > to> > shun the new ASP.NET project model advocated by VS 2005.> >> > I > am > > sticking with the VS 2003 model. It is almost like they> > are trying > to > > cater for ASP developers (of which I used to be one).> >> > The fact > that > > the Global.asax file in the new web project template> > contains inline > > script was enough to make my skin crawl. The appCode> > facility is > > unecessary.> >> > Partial classes are I suppose ok for > compartmentalising > > code> > but really a smell that your class is too big.> > Anybody who > > wants to stick to the superior VS 2003 model> > should look no further > > than the following:> > http://webproject.scottgu.com/Default.aspx> >> > > I > > can't be the only one thinking this new model is just not> > the > ticket?> > > > Paul> >> >> > ===================================> > This list is > hosted > > by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com> >> > View archives and > manage > > your subscription(s) at> > http://discuss.develop.com> >> > > > ===================================> > This list is hosted by > > DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com> >> > View archives and manage > > your subscription(s) at> > http://discuss.develop.com> >> > > > ===================================> This list is hosted by > DevelopMentorR > > http://www.develop.com> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) > at > > http://discuss.develop.com > > =================================== > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR http://www.develop.com > > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > > http://discuss.develop.com > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor. http://www.develop.com > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
