MVC: I'll need a little bit more context on that

ASP.NET MVC Archived Buzz, Page 1

ASP.NET MVC Archived Buzz, Page 1 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:16:01 GMT

Pingback from ASP.NET MVC Archived Buzz, Page 1

re: MVC: I'll need a little bit more context on that

superevanc — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:19:56 GMT

"Since the context types derive from one another (except for HttpContextBase), you can often pass in whatever context type you have to call some method from a lower level. For example, in the view you get a ViewContext that you can pass into the URL routing methods."

I'm not sure I see the benefit to this approach. It feels like there is a bit of an intertwining of concerns where "the lower levels" now have access to the "higher levels" but I fail to see why there are these levels.

re: MVC: I'll need a little bit more context on that

cvertex — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:00:16 GMT

Needs more contextualization around the contextual contexts.

Versioning Issues With Abstract Base Classes and Interfaces

you've been HAACKED — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:17:11 GMT

Versioning Issues With Abstract Base Classes and Interfaces

re: MVC: I'll need a little bit more context on that

Shawn Oster — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:56:05 GMT

Thanks for the post, I'm looking forward with baited breath (OK, maybe not exactly *baited*) for the next MVC drop. Of course all this context brings questions ;)

I'm curious how a MVC request stacks up to a WebForms one in terms of objects created, perf and overhead. Some things obviously went away with the WebForms stack but we're also gaining them with the new Context and the fact that interfaces are usually slightly slower (from what I remember, I could easily be wrong). That being said I wonder how/if you could profile that today using something like AQTime.

Anyway, exciting stuff and It's pretty freeing to get away from ViewState and massive grids and repeater controls. Before ASP.NET MVC I was probably a few months away from jumping ship to Rails.