Quite an interesting topic this; it's shown me what the MVC framework really is and how it's different from the traditional webforms way of working, and so far I like it.
A question I had though was, does the MVC framework also bring a performance increase by definition since the Viewstate (and other such elements) are no longer in use?
Since it's still in-development (beta) , it would be to early to talk performance.
Anyway, without doing specific stress tests on production hardware, I would say it's equal, if not faster, in speed.
But that's just my personal view of it.
I don't have access to a licenced IIS7 yet as well, so can't tell about it would perform even better on that (I somewhat assume it would.)
I just read about mvc in the msdn magazine and run a couple of examples... my personal opinion: OMG, we are back to ASP! after so much hard work to workaround the stateless http, so many superb asp.net controls and a robust RAD web development model with
server code separated to the code-behind files, we are going to mix html and server script code like we did years ago!
thx guys for bringing us back to the future [Nope]
dpant
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
we are going to mix html and server script code like we did years ago!
Ignorance?
How is XML instead of C# any difference? Would <asp:csharp>myCSharpLambdaExpressionHere</asp:csharp> please you more than <% %> ?
Look who's talking. First learn to distinguish between declarative and programmatic and then we talk again. I can safely assume you have never used asp, asp.net (web forms) or anything that has to do with web development before.
give us a break will y?
SonOfPirate is so damn right:
Please, someone help me understand so I can see the value of this framework cuz from where I stand, it looks like it has taken development back to traditional ASP with a better engine underneath. Why take a
step backwards?
dpant
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
dpant, I think there are always going to be people like you who don't 'get' MVC. They are mostly people who have used ASP and ASP.NET but never anything else like PHP, Rails or other programming frameworks. You seems to think that MVC is all about moving
the code back to the inline script like ASP, but that is about 1% of it, and even that is optional.
dpant, I think there are always going to be people like you who don't 'get' MVC. They are mostly people who have used ASP and ASP.NET but never anything else like PHP, Rails or other programming frameworks. You seems to think that MVC is all about moving
the code back to the inline script like ASP, but that is about 1% of it, and even that is optional.
Right. If I wanted something else I wouldn't have used asp.net in the first place. But you see, I hate php and rails. On the other hand I love asp.net and I hope mvc remains just an alternative and nothing more.
ps: prove me it is optional.
dpant
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
If you had taken the time to even take a high level look at MVC, this would already be "Proven" for you.Part of the power of this framework is that everything is pluggable even the view engine. MVC comes with the asp view engine, but you can plug in any
view engine you like. There are several out there and you could even write your own. We are in early CTP here, I have no idea how you can come in and rant just because you don't get it. I would refer you to
http://forums.asp.net/t/1220045.aspx for some additional discussion from some folks similar to yourself. Just because you don't like something does not mean you should run in and rant all over the place, especially
when it is obvious that you have done no research on the framework other than seeing a set of code blocks and freaking out because you think this might replace your framework of choice. But don't worry, this is just an option and for those of us that see the
advantage of this type of framework, we are glad to have the option.
If you had taken the time to even take a high level look at MVC, this would already be "Proven" for you.Part of the power of this framework is that everything is pluggable even the view engine. MVC comes with the asp view engine, but you can plug in any
view engine you like. There are several out there and you could even write your own. We are in early CTP here, I have no idea how you can come in and rant just because you don't get it. I would refer you to
http://forums.asp.net/t/1220045.aspx for some additional discussion from some folks similar to yourself. Just because you don't like something does not mean you should run in and rant all over the place, especially
when it is obvious that you have done no research on the framework other than seeing a set of code blocks and freaking out because you think this might replace your framework of choice. But don't worry, this is just an option and for those of us that see the
advantage of this type of framework, we are glad to have the option.
Listen pal, I have been working with asp(.net) since ever and yes I can come in and say my opinion much like you can say yours. Most of you guys forget that ASP.NET revolutionized the web when it first came out. Noone, i repeat -noone- wants to refill html
forms manually, this is a huge leap backwards. So far this is what this 2nd mvc preview is all about. There may be certain testing advantages but what we want is all our asp.net components, architecture and lifecycle that bring
HUGE benefits to RAD web development. There are certain types of websites -if not most of them- that can be created in asp.net in a fraction of time compared to mvc and with a vastly better and richer interface. Of course the mvc is not yet finalized
-even the Html and Url helpers are incomplete, and I think everyone expects much more to come. But I cannot just sit and read about asp.net being bad and not supporting separation of layers! Who told you to include your business logic directly in the code-behind
files? There are thousands and thousands of (official) tutorials on how to organize your code in layers using the App_Code folder and Web Services! We all know that .net for win applications (win forms) just didn't make it out and that Visual Studio and the
whole .net team is focusing 100% on the web. So, cut the crap and let's talk about the real issue: why is microsoft publishing all these new technologies and features (linq, f#, mvc etc) in an inhumanly fast pace without considering the steep learning curve?
I mean, come on, new things and options are a good thing but we all know what it feels like to eat your buffet meal in a hurry! My message to microsoft: let us digest the existing techniques; stop chasing competition. ruby for ruby people, php for php people
and ASP.NET to us all (amen)!
dpant
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
elkdanger
Member
274 Points
81 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 04, 2008 10:20 AM|LINK
Quite an interesting topic this; it's shown me what the MVC framework really is and how it's different from the traditional webforms way of working, and so far I like it.
A question I had though was, does the MVC framework also bring a performance increase by definition since the Viewstate (and other such elements) are no longer in use?
TheDeathArt
Member
123 Points
50 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 04, 2008 11:42 AM|LINK
Since it's still in-development (beta) , it would be to early to talk performance.
Anyway, without doing specific stress tests on production hardware, I would say it's equal, if not faster, in speed.
But that's just my personal view of it.
I don't have access to a licenced IIS7 yet as well, so can't tell about it would perform even better on that (I somewhat assume it would.)
WhatThe12
Contributor
3416 Points
984 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 04, 2008 07:07 PM|LINK
They don't for standard form submit buttons.
dpant
Member
426 Points
80 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 01:29 PM|LINK
I just read about mvc in the msdn magazine and run a couple of examples... my personal opinion: OMG, we are back to ASP! after so much hard work to workaround the stateless http, so many superb asp.net controls and a robust RAD web development model with server code separated to the code-behind files, we are going to mix html and server script code like we did years ago!
thx guys for bringing us back to the future [Nope]
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
TheDeathArt
Member
123 Points
50 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 03:03 PM|LINK
we are going to mix html and server script code like we did years ago!
Ignorance?
How is XML instead of C# any difference? Would <asp:csharp>myCSharpLambdaExpressionHere</asp:csharp> please you more than <% %> ?
dpant
Member
426 Points
80 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 09:50 PM|LINK
Look who's talking. First learn to distinguish between declarative and programmatic and then we talk again. I can safely assume you have never used asp, asp.net (web forms) or anything that has to do with web development before.
give us a break will y?
SonOfPirate is so damn right:
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
craigvn
Member
24 Points
9 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 09:58 PM|LINK
dpant, I think there are always going to be people like you who don't 'get' MVC. They are mostly people who have used ASP and ASP.NET but never anything else like PHP, Rails or other programming frameworks. You seems to think that MVC is all about moving the code back to the inline script like ASP, but that is about 1% of it, and even that is optional.
dpant
Member
426 Points
80 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 10:02 PM|LINK
Right. If I wanted something else I wouldn't have used asp.net in the first place. But you see, I hate php and rails. On the other hand I love asp.net and I hope mvc remains just an alternative and nothing more.
ps: prove me it is optional.
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.
mrfleck
Member
164 Points
109 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 06, 2008 10:46 PM|LINK
If you had taken the time to even take a high level look at MVC, this would already be "Proven" for you.Part of the power of this framework is that everything is pluggable even the view engine. MVC comes with the asp view engine, but you can plug in any view engine you like. There are several out there and you could even write your own. We are in early CTP here, I have no idea how you can come in and rant just because you don't get it. I would refer you to http://forums.asp.net/t/1220045.aspx for some additional discussion from some folks similar to yourself. Just because you don't like something does not mean you should run in and rant all over the place, especially when it is obvious that you have done no research on the framework other than seeing a set of code blocks and freaking out because you think this might replace your framework of choice. But don't worry, this is just an option and for those of us that see the advantage of this type of framework, we are glad to have the option.
dpant
Member
426 Points
80 Posts
Re: Why not support post-backs?
Apr 07, 2008 10:36 AM|LINK
Listen pal, I have been working with asp(.net) since ever and yes I can come in and say my opinion much like you can say yours. Most of you guys forget that ASP.NET revolutionized the web when it first came out. Noone, i repeat -noone- wants to refill html forms manually, this is a huge leap backwards. So far this is what this 2nd mvc preview is all about. There may be certain testing advantages but what we want is all our asp.net components, architecture and lifecycle that bring HUGE benefits to RAD web development. There are certain types of websites -if not most of them- that can be created in asp.net in a fraction of time compared to mvc and with a vastly better and richer interface. Of course the mvc is not yet finalized -even the Html and Url helpers are incomplete, and I think everyone expects much more to come. But I cannot just sit and read about asp.net being bad and not supporting separation of layers! Who told you to include your business logic directly in the code-behind files? There are thousands and thousands of (official) tutorials on how to organize your code in layers using the App_Code folder and Web Services! We all know that .net for win applications (win forms) just didn't make it out and that Visual Studio and the whole .net team is focusing 100% on the web. So, cut the crap and let's talk about the real issue: why is microsoft publishing all these new technologies and features (linq, f#, mvc etc) in an inhumanly fast pace without considering the steep learning curve? I mean, come on, new things and options are a good thing but we all know what it feels like to eat your buffet meal in a hurry! My message to microsoft: let us digest the existing techniques; stop chasing competition. ruby for ruby people, php for php people and ASP.NET to us all (amen)!
.NET Developer
*Please remember to mark this reply as answer if it helped you.