Topic: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

http://www.garrettdimon.com/archives/as … chitecture

^ Some good reasons there not to use ASP.Net, or if you do what to look out for.

Give me liturgy or give me death.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

Interesting article, from the perspective of an MCSD most of my programming has been focused at business and data layer services.  The UI layer is just a "skin" for my application.  I would agree to a point that .NET 1.x is not the most CSS friendly, but you need to remember that when 1.x was developed (late 1990's) CSS standards were not a huge focus within the industry as a whole (keep in mind, I'm not a designer smile ).  Specifically, tables were still the layout method of choice. 

I have to take issue with his item number 6.  With the implementation of client side validation controls, web user controls, etc. the client id is very important the way asp.net renders it.  Could it have been done better?  Probably, but we have about 6 years of experience now with the 1.x framework to complain about, and hence 2.0.  2.0 makes great strides for the CSS gurus of the world.  Is it complete, probably not, but is anything when it comes to technology? ..... No.... that's why we all have jobs. smile

We use the control provider Telerik. They are very focused on CSS standard and is making great strides in standardizing their control rendering.

Last edited by chuck.boyer (2006-07-26 12:20:42)

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

Yeah, I didn't like the HTML that the .NET controls rendered so when I developed Vine Type I didn't use them.  The aspx page for Vine Type is a single line pointing to the code-behind.  No front-end code whatsoever, not even an HTML element.   I read in a template file (that had better be well-formed or Vine Type will give you an error) instead.  Now every page validates every time.

.NET isn't the problem, the HTML that the controls render that are the problem.  .NET rocks!   smile

Content Management with Standards In Mind: Vine Type | www.vinetype.com

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

Carl,

Which version of .NET are you using?  I assume, since I've had your RSS in my reader for a while its probably 1.1?

ASP.NET 2.0 is better, but what Microsoft considers semantic is still laughable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has thought to render pages this way, although that was how I did it in traditional ASP.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

Yes, I'm running 1.1.  The 1.1 dll runs in the 2.0 framework and I plan on releasing a native 2.0 dll in the next month or so. With the way you and I set up our applications, the code is easily ported to .NET 2.0.  I need to setup my work environment so that I can code under either framework and the changes are seen in both.   I think junction.exe will be the solution.

Last edited by Carl Camera (2006-08-17 08:50:55)

Content Management with Standards In Mind: Vine Type | www.vinetype.com

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

I have to agree with Carl on this one.  .NET is a great technology and, while i may get blasted for saying it, ASP.NET takes some large steps forward from ASP in business terms.  I've had more than my fair share of problems with them both, and the markup isn't great, but it sure makes my information systems job a whole lot easier than classic ASP.  Debugging alone

.NET and ASP.NET are geared towards creating business value and I think Microsoft chose to sacrifice semantics and valid markup for other benefits such as productivity and reusability.  They targeted they lucrative coporate market and are really starting to win it.  I hate saying it, but search engines have gotten good enough at plowing through all the garbage markup out there that the benefits ASP.NET presents outweigh the liabilities in my experience.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

whodurun4,
I don't think there is any reason Microsoft couldn't have done a better job of getting the semantics and valid markup right in ASP.NET 2.0.  The only productivity they benefited by failing to do so is their own.

Now I have to figure out ways to override their output to produce the valid markup I use as a selling point to clients.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

I'm not saying they couldn't have done a better job.  I just think Microsoft chose to focus on creating business value for enterprise-level users and intranets.  I think they were targeting ASP.NET for that market and didn't see valid HTML being as valuable to those customers.

It's made my day job easier, but I know that using ASP.NET to produce fully valid markup can be painful.  I also think they could have make some more progress with 2.0 even though it is an improvement as you said.

What are some of the better ways you've found to work around the invalid markup?  One of the best methods I've found is refusing to use the datagrid and using repeaters instead.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

lol.
That's pretty much how I do it too.

Apparently in ASP.NET 2.0 you can completely override the output generated by the controls, but I haven't investigated that option yet.  Like you, most of what I've had to do so far has been for sites where they've insisted on IE6.  Since I've had to deal with *that* browser only, I didn't bother to take the time to make things better.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

You can by overriding the control's Render method, but that requires rewriting a ridiculously large portion of ASP.NET.  As much as I'd love to be working with standards, I can't justify the effort.  There's just too much effort that goes into it.  The fact that all that work has already been done for you is one of the biggest advantages of the framework.

Re: ASP.Net vs Front-End Architecture

*inserts his two cents*
I'm very new to .NET, but already have learned that it is very powerful.  At work I used .NET for a project and wanted to get the xhtml output just right, and granted in the 1.x versions a lot of controls don't print out what you want, you can override the output fairly easily.

like most M$ technologies they are meant for rapid development and they acheive just that.  2.0 gives better output in terms of the xhtml, but you can still override it to your liking, or better yet create custom controls to suit your needs.

I'm a standards freak, and was able to get valid XHTML Strict 1.0 out of .NET 1.x, you just have to work a little harder, but 2.0 is a lot better.

Stop voting for ANY evil, lesser evils are just that!