You searched for the word(s): userid:150238

More Search Options

RSS Available

• Re: Analyzing request log for an MVC application, strange things found?

  is answer so obvious or? does anyone find this unusual as I do?

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 10/15/2008

• Analyzing request log for an MVC application, strange things found?

  Having some strange behavior with my UoW implementation which I use in my MVC apps I went in and put Log4Net entries for Application Start, End and Begin and End Request events in global.asax. Before I post details from the log, a few words on the setup... Its a vanilla MVC P5 app which only has some simple design (css + couple of images) and has defined routes: public override void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e) { log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator.Configure(); log.Info("Started

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 10/13/2008

• Re: MVC on 64bit server (win server 2008)

  Actually I wouldnt if I dont have to... (which now seems I don't).

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 9/16/2008

• Re: MVC on 64bit server (win server 2008)

  Makes sense, I will try it and if my findings are different I will post them here. Thank you!

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 9/15/2008

• Re: MVC on 64bit server (win server 2008)

  Sounds great! We have a planned test this week, but still its great to hear personal experiences! Thank you so much for your quick answer!

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 9/15/2008

• MVC on 64bit server (win server 2008)

  For a client I am starting to build an application based on ASP.NET MVC. One of the requirements of the client is that the application is deployed on Windows Server 2008 - 64bits, so my question is: a) Does anyone know will it work (forgetting everything else in the application like nhibernate)? b) Has anyone had any problems working on 32bit machine with it and deploying it on 64bits (one idea is that the build server is 64bits so that the application gets built there, but we are still investigating

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 9/14/2008

• Re: What do you think, should default controllers look like this?

  Ok... I've found why this is so (actually not sure how I didn't figure this out before). Each action can send it's own type of ViewData, and one can use specific ViewData, other doesn't need to... That's why it was made both ways. But still... this suffers from all the problems above... wonder what MS guys think? Any plans for the next CTP which will adress these concerns a bit (I already know that RenderView will be made public for testing purposes)?

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 1/7/2008

• Re: What do you think, should default controllers look like this?

  That's why there is a non generic version of the Controller - which inherits the generic one, only implements it with the dictionaries - that is the correct way to handle this. But then - as with typed way - the intent is clear

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 1/7/2008

• Re: What do you think, should default controllers look like this?

  Several things: - The current controller is not type-safe - although your view is <SomeType> for ViewData in your controller you can basically *suff* anything in the ViewData as it accepts an object - it suffers from all problems we've dealt with generics (and it's not clear for the developers what they should send down the pipe to view) - When I was trying to test the controller and the data sent down the pipe (ViewData) I had to both check if it had the typed data or if it had that

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 1/7/2008

• Re: What do you think, should default controllers look like this?

  Actually it's a both ways thing... if you want to be type-safe it needs to be specified on both view and controller.

  Posted to ASP.NET MVC (Forum) by Vladan Strigo on 1/7/2008