Hi Cerebrus,

That was gud one..

Regards
Vignesh.R.Joshi


On 3/30/09, Cerebrus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> You're most welcome, Alex! It has been my pleasure contributing to
> this discussion and it seems to have hit a chord with the group
> members as well. We don't normally see so much activity within a
> single thread.
>
> As for building Custom server controls, I would consider it an
> advanced topic and unlikely to be asked about in an interview. To be
> honest, I myself have only basic knowledge about Control authoring
> since I haven't needed to build them yet. I would suggest that you
> just understand how a custom server control renders its output (for
> instance, using the overridden RenderContents method to write output
> to an HtmlTextWriter) and that knowledge should be sufficient. This
> walkthrough should get you through the basics (http://
> msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yhzc935f(VS.80).aspx)
>
> In my opinion, what is more important at this stage is to understand
> how Pages work, their lifecycle, State management techniques, Master
> pages and UserControls, Caching for performance, familiarity with the
> various types of built-in controls, data retrieval and update
> scenarios and Site configuration to name a few. At this stage, your
> stress should be on understanding the .NET framework and build
> familiarity with either C# or VB.
>
> Remember that you'll always have time to delve deeper into topics that
> interest you, later.
>
> On Mar 30, 6:47 pm, Alex Y Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Milo, I just don't get your point. I don't see any reason why I have
> > to know ASP.NET to get my degree, and thanks again, Cerebrus.
> >
> > After some initial reading through the recommended books, I have a
> > rough idea of learning something about building Custom Server
> > Controls, because it seems fun. I know I may just have time to touch a
> > small part of the subject though. Does that sound realistic? If so,
> > any suggestions on how to get on track quickly on that? Thanks.
> >
> > Alex
> >
>

Reply via email to