10 arguments why to start a webproject the asp.net 2.0 way

I had two discussions in the newsgroup about the general design of web sites. The first idea of a poster was to build one default.aspx and load dynamicly everthing from usercontrols. The second is to have a webpage with following content

<%@ Page .... Codebehind .... %>
<%=pageHTML %>

The content comes from sql database.

My opinion is both is complete.... nonsense. ( i would like to say sh...) Dont do this.!

My rule is: every task is a aspx page

A lot of ( also experienced) developers do not trust Microsoft in this way and thing must build their own library ect. I think do it like Microsoft suggest.

From my experience i have created 10 arguments

1. Google ( and other) can not crawle in perfect matter (Meta Tags, Header, URLs, Content in general)
2. no visual and declarative edit possible
3. more work to step into the project for 3rd party
4. slower rendering
5. more errors in development
6. No caching support or bader caching
7. Layout problems
8. No open & edit with Frontpage
9. higher development costs
10. if you have two ways, take the easier one

I am not completly against usercontrols. If you build Webparts, Menus, function groups it make sense. But not as core concept for building a web page.

Published Saturday, May 28, 2005 11:03 AM by preishuber

Comments

# re: 10 arguments why to start a webproject the asp.net 2.0 way

Saturday, May 28, 2005 5:35 AM by Paschal
Agree but in some cases it could make sense to control the content of the page. I can imagine a web app linked to a Cms for instance. Sure it could be slower but not really if you use a proper cache.I built the site www.scoilnet.ie doing so, usinng dScribe as the Cms tool and everything is loaded dynamically and it works quite well.

# re: 10 arguments why to start a webproject the asp.net 2.0 way

Saturday, May 28, 2005 6:05 AM by Thomas Tomiczek
::From my experience i have created 10
::arguments

Hell, must be a really limited experience on this.

Sorry.

"every task is a aspx page" is nice when you handcode applications. When you edit content, though, you do not want to edit them. Using templates and mixing in the content from a CMS is the way to go.

Let's see:

::1. Google ( and other) can not crawle in
::perfect matter (Meta Tags, Header, URLs,
::Content in general)

Wrong. Google can crawl is perfectly, and whether you manipulate headers, too, is totally up to you. Every CMS works this way.

::2. no visual and declarative edit possible

Who cares? Frankly, sometimes you arein a situation where you do not need it. You have a number of templates, and people fill in text. Look up what a CMS does. Plus, who says there is no visual edit possible? Lot's of CMS do WYSIWYG, you know.

::3. more work to step into the project for
::3rd party

Was this supposed to make sense?

::4. slower rendering

Who cares? Little tip: you do not get a price for super fast rendering, as long as the rendering is fast enough (and has reserves). Plus, use of the output cache can eliminate the rendering step in 95% of the time.

::5. more errors in development

Contrary - less errors in development. When you separete the HTML pages from the content, the content can not fuck up the HTML.

::6. No caching support or bader caching

Wrong and Wrong. Think it through - you will be surprised how obvious things you overlooked.

::7. Layout problems

Ok. Bullshit. Yes, real bullshit. Whether you have layout problems or not totally depends on whether you use this as an excuse to work bad.

::8. No open & edit with Frontpage

which is something 99% of the people give a shit about, you know. Even those that have to edit content do not necessarily like to deal with frontpage (too low level - i.e. html based).

::9. higher development costs

Wrong. Development costs can be lower. If you need a dynamic editable website you need to go CMS, or write one.

::10. if you have two ways, take the easier one

Wrong, again. If you have two ways, take the one with is more efficient - LONG TERM. For websites this automatically would involve, imho, using a CMS, an for applications - well - a nice architecture.

Sorry, but the arguments are among the weakest I have heard, and totally ignore reality. Stop looking at things from the perspective of a developer - looka t things from the perspective of a customer and / or project manager. Most of your arguments are irrelevant in most cases (rendering speed, for example), from a business point of view, as well as from a technical one. You make assumptions that the people going with a dyanmic load approach are also incompetent developers. This is not necessarily true.

Sorry, your opinion demonstrates that while everyone is entitled to an opinion, some people justdemonstarte icompetence there.

# re: 10 arguments why to start a webproject the asp.net 2.0 way

Saturday, May 28, 2005 6:16 PM by Pugster
First, I don't know why the points you listed above would not apply to an ASP.NET 1.0/1.1 page. I was expecting more about the project-less web apps that is new to 2.0. Second, your arguments sound like examples to another articles called "ASP.NET Myths Debunked". Come on, FrontPage? You got to be kidding.

# re: 10 arguments why to start a webproject the asp.net 2.0 way

Friday, March 26, 2010 11:44 AM by Kelda

Good morning. Use what you have to run toward your best - that's how I now live my life. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Baby bedding wholesale. I found only this - <a href="baby-bedding.net/.../">baby bedding store</a>. Bedding, if you start meal or homemade foam, this examination is not the nothing to demonstrate it. Bedding, there are closely some concerts which apply login for the forty of kindness experimentally in the game of corporate and hydrolysis said efforts, for which the business can be examining. Waiting for a reply :cool:, Kelda from Tonga.

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)