Atlas is too hard

Actually, Atlas is relatively easy to use, but the configuration sucks.

First off, what is wrong with the people in Redmond that they can't just give us a zip full of files. Why, in a world of Xcopy deployment, do I need these stupid installers just to get an assembly out?

Second, the configuration is borderline ridiculous. I realize we're in CTP mode right now, but why, oh why, are there dozens of lines that we need to add to web.config just to get this stuff to run? It's too much work. Extra work is bad.

The tools are pretty cool, but the deployment needs to get much more simple to be really useful. 

13 Comments

  • Atlas actually support XCOPY deployment.

    Once you build an application using the Atlas project template, you can then copy it onto any ASP.NET 2.0 server and have it work - with nothing required to be installed on the remote system (all Atlas bits are self-contained within the application itself).

    That is the reason the settings are by default added ot the app's web.config file as opposed to registered centrally on the box.

    Hope this helps,

    Scott

  • I didn't say you couldn't Xcopy deploy, I said it's annoying that there's a junky installer.

    As for the config stuff, who is going to build something from scratch using the template? Why should you need the template at all? I realize that the long-term goal is to have it all part of the framework, but right now it's essentially a component/control product. It shouldn't require anything more than dropping in the assembly and perhaps one config entry of some kind, where the rest is handled automagically by defaults.

    I know you've heard it from your customers before... most of us hate heaps of auto-generated crap. Presumably that's why you changed the code-behind model to something far more elegant.

  • The installer is here because we need you to aknowledge the EULA before you install. You can't do that with a zip file.

  • Yup, too many lines to add to web.config. To make matters worse, you need to check the web.config file very carefully when you change versions - they keep changing what you need to add.

    I'll forgive them though because it's still a CTP.

  • Jeff,

    I agree with you to some degree. It's nice to have a template for new projects, but I'm going to be trying to slip Atlas into existing projects in the near-term.

    I think a nice solution would be to add a right-click option on the web project to "Atlas-ize this Project" which would modify the web.config file with the necessary entries. This would be much like when you debug a web project fot the first time and are prompted to automatically add the Debug="true" attribute to the web.config file. Anything like this will ease developers into using Atlas.

    ScottGu...I know you're watching :) Whaddya think?

  • Sounds like a great idea. Given that there already IS an installer, and VS.NET supports that, adding wizard functionality to add (and remove?) atlas from existing projects just sounds like the next logical step :-)

  • "Atlas is relatively easy to use"

    Well, that's not so easy to use if you want to do something more than just put there an UpdatePanel and some triggers. The docuentation is lacking, and they keep publishing webcasts where they just show how to drag UpdatePanels onto the webforms. I bet that now even children know how to do that!

  • .Net is too hard.

    Throughout the entire dotnet environment the problem is the same. There are always some secret/magical, rarely documented, lines of code which have to be added to the web.config file, the global.asax file or whether the code is in the right stage of the page life cycle, in order to make things work.

    The problem with dotnet is that it's "half-automated" with the remaining steps derived from some book or training video which typically point out in a footnote the tricks to make things actually work. to be productive people have to "remember" how they got it work the last time they did something similar.

    Step 1 for improvements to dotnet 3.0 would be to have a tool which creates a web.config file.


    The huge lack of VB.et examples is a nightmare. As MS pushes C# on to the development community they destroy the community by dividing it into two camps.

    Don't get me started on "code-behind'

  • I think you're going a little overboard, Dee. I have apps that don't have anything but a connection string in web.config. And VS already does create a basic web.config, and even does Intellisense now so you don't have to guess tag names.

  • Bertrand Le Roy >> The installer is here because we need you to aknowledge the EULA before you install. You can't do that with a zip file.

    Sure you can. "By opening this file, you agree to the terms of the EULA."

    Microsoft's many installers for everything (sample projects, etc) are annoying...

  • Trouble is Jeff, how do you know when VS is going to automatically do something for you and when it is not going to do something for you.

    There is no consistency for various implementations of code development. The developer is expected to "remember" or google himself to death to find out when the various combinations of automatic/manual insertions are required.

  • What are you talking about? Give me an example, because I have no such problems.

  • Good suggestion from John Walker, with which I totally agree.

    Isn't one of the reasons of the installer to create a new web project type 'Atlas website'?

    Which you could argue wouldn't need to be there if you can simply Atlas-ize a web project...

Comments have been disabled for this content.