Right now I have a single ASP.NET solution with one project in it. The problem I'm facing is that multiple developers are working on different parts of the project that are getting released at different times. Because of this my project manager is thinking we can split the project into multiple dlls instead of just one dll so that we can update just the modules that need to updated.
1. Is splitting the project into multiple projects (multiple dlls) the correct way to solve this problem?
2. If so, how do I do this?
Can I just copy the appropriate aspx/cs files to the new project, remove them from the old one and build? What about Master Pages, CSS, Javascript and User-Controls, will I need to copy those along as well or can they be referenced in the "Core" Project? Would I need to make some adjustments in IIS or can I just copy the aspx from the new "sub-project" to the root of the "Core" Project (essentially where the aspx files are now)?
3. If not, what is the better solution to fix my issue?
Thanks for your help
Edit (to add a bit more clarity):
Right now our structure is something like this (shortened and code-behind implied):
MasterPage.master
styles.css
SplashPage.aspx
Page.aspx
AnotherPage.aspx
a_MasterPage.master
a_Page.aspx
a_AnotherPage.aspx
b_Page.aspx
b_AnotherPage.aspx
b_AlsoAnotherPage.aspx
Can I take all the a_ pages and roll them into one project and all the b_ pages and roll them into another (which would separate the dlls).
If this doesn't make sense please ask and I'll try to explain it better
Yes
How? Don't think in terms of pages, but rather functionality. The best way to handle your issue is to move the business logic out of the ASP.NET experience layer project and put it in class libraries. You can then have different types of developers working on different types of code.
Now, if you truly have different "sites", meaning they serve different purposes, then you may have to move some pages to one and other pages to another. I can't answer whether that is a need or not.
Hopefully, this all makes sense. NOTE: If you code is contained in Page_Load() and event handlers, you are pretty much screwed until you can refactor the code into individual methods.
3.) What about some version control system, wouldn't that serve you better?
Splitting project like this isn't a good idea imo, it would make sense, if you would like to split logical/physical layers of that project (you could have different project for your data access, another for business logic etc.) But splitting to projects, where one contains "welcome.aspx" and second one "contact.aspx".. hmm I would rather use SVN / Git / TFS / Whatever ;)
Normally you split the project according to the function or feature eg. you could split off the data access layer into a different project.
I ussually try to keep my view together and separate the core features, so it would be easy to use the same dll's over different websites.
eg: I have a project with all the methods and a db for user management.
I could deploy this project on a server and reference it in all my websites.
This way users can use the same login over all my websites.
So once you have a core system, everyone can make his own project and just reference the projects needed.
Yes you just move your aspx/c# files to a different project and reference the new project in your existing project.
I do think that every project needs his own masterpage though (last time I checked that is).
I hope this answers you question.
Related
I've got a few web projects that have alot of common code.
The common code even loads the website, in the sense that there is some MAIN.aspx page which all the websites load, and it uses the configuration file to determine what to show in a pre-designed place holders.
I'm trying to split all the projects (or at least new projects) into one common project with all the controls, common pages and common logic, and one project for every specific project.
The problem is that the main page will be located in the common project.
I found two solutions to the problem, but I don't like them:
Copy everything on build - I think that usually at one point or another, the copy function fails, and then the application won't update. Most developers on my team won't be able to debug that.
Use virtual directories to the common page - That might cause the project to load with different binaries, and also might cause it to use a different configuration file.
Is there a way to use some sort of reference for the aspx page itself, and then create some constant loader which will load the common code?
Is there some other design pattern that can help me solve that particular problem?
I have an ASP.NET MVC project that is deployed via Visual Studio's Web Deployment - all works fine so far.
I now need to deploy another version of the same project (e.g. for a different customer) - with the same code base/functionality, but with a different layout, i.e. other CSS and images (maybe even with different views/Razor code). Ideally, the content from the other configuration would not be published at all.
I know I can use different connection strings for the persistence layer - but is there a way to configure also configure other content elements?
I'd like to avoid having two versions (or later even more) that required branching/merging - but rather like to simply deploy the latest version with the different "themes"...
I have a MVC project with 4 class libraries. And i deployed it into 3 other domains.
I copied only MVC project without controllers or code classes for each client, and added them into my solution. I use them only for visual changes or themes. Not for server side functionality. So the copied projects' assemblies shouldn't be deployed. Only the UI files should be deployed. Assemblies are deployed from the original MVC project's output folder.
I build solution and publish dll's into 3 domain, and publish only each client's UI files into it's server.
This enables me to develop server-side functionality in only one MVC project. Separate UI files from server side functionality.
Hope this helps.
are you using MVC then?
What you can do is to override the default razor engine and create your own. What the razor engine does is mainly to map your requests to views in particular folders, you can tell the razor engine when to map those requests to views in one folder or another.
MVC4 Razor Custom View Locator
A full fledged explaination is here :
http://nickberardi.com/creating-your-first-mvc-viewengine/
That is for views, if you just want the CSS or JS to be different, you just have to map your requests to a razor bundle and then vary what the content of the bundle is depending on a variable, or the pressence of a configuration file, or by filling a variable with a value from the database.
As you can see here bundling is very easy :
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minification
Say your html points to : /assets/mycssbundle.css , but what that file would actually contain can be altered by where you tell to the bundling function that the files are located.
This seems like a design question. If you foresee possible changes like this in the future, and you already swap content via DB, then you should consider loading css file from database. There're of course many other ways to do this but simple and efficient is preferable.
This would mean structuring your html properly to ensure all layout is properly handled via CSS and can be achieved via ViewData or ViewBag. See case example.
Edit:
Not css data but the relevant css file.
You have two options:
A) Develop a custom view engine that switches between different page sets depending on the configuration. This will allow you to switch between the page sets just by changing the web.config settings, which fits well with the visual studio's built in deployment model (different web.config transformations kick-in for different deployment environments). One implementation that comes to mind - switch between view engines for different deployment environments (in different web.config transformations).
Unlike the other suggestion to load pages from the DB, I would recommend loading them from folder or physical location (e.g. different view engines targeting different sub-folders of the project). DB approach is not developer friendly when it comes to developing and fixing pages and their markups that are in the DB.
B) Develop all page sets (all variations) under the same project and then write custom deployment scripts which deploy particular page sets depending on the deployment environment. Drawback of this approach is that it's hard to notice issues like page sets intersecting or links crossing the page set boundaries.
While plan B sounds a little bit simpler development-wise, it can become a nightmare maintenance- and deployment-wise.
So, I recommend plan A.
Your Question is too broad.
However we have also a similar use case. We put all the theme related stuff (css, images, etc) as an embedded ressource in a separate assembly. We have Customer1.Theme.dll and Customer2.Theme.dll etc.
The App loads dynamically the Theme.dll and references the ressrouces from there.
Among other solutions,
assuming that you are using asp.net mvc.
and assuming that you have content1 and content2 folder available in the same repository or making available in same repository is not a concern.
and assuming your are bundling your contents.
and assuming your images are referenced only using css.
You can have a app config key which will tell you whether you want content1 or content2.
something like,
<add key="sitecontent" value="content1"/>
Now in your Application start in global asax, read the app config key and depending on the value, call the
BundleConfig.RegisterContent1Bundles(BundleTable.Bundles);
BundleConfig.RegisterContent2Bundles(BundleTable.Bundles);
I think this is a design issue. As you can see below you can organize your .net application in different layers:
Source: Microsoft
There are some key principles (Separation of concerns, DRY, etc) that Microsoft strongly encourages through the .net platform and I believe will find good use in your project.
Based on what you describe a simple approach is to keep in one project -same for all clients- your business layer (including the Services or the Data layer - even with different connection strings for each project) and create separate projects for the Presentation layer.
You may find more information from Scott, CodeProject, or more traditional methods (BTW this is a great book).
I'm creating a new MVC web application. I've never used MVC before (in asp.net). Anyway, in my last project, I used Code First and Entity Framework to handle my data and I enjoyed using that so I wanted to use it again.
Now, in the last project, I had a separate project/folder for handling the models and contexts, and I just referenced it into my main project. Would doing something like that still be the right choice in an MVC project, or should I just run it from the 'Models' section?
This is the website where I was learning how to implement this:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/468777/Code-First-with-Entity-Framework-5-using-MVC4-and
Is there anything wrong with that approach or is it fine?
Nothing wrong.
If your project is not big enough go for it. Having just one project make it simpler though that you must keep the code organized
If your project might get large, then it would be a good choice to have two project or more for different layers and tiers of your application, such that different guys work on their own project.
In a website, I see some developers put code into app_code, and sometimes appcode (due to some bug), other files into DataModel, and other files into miscellaneous folders.
Is there a standard approach to organizing code within an application?
How is it different between an ASP.NET, MVC, Silverlight, Console, Database, and WCF application? The reason I mention WCF is because many people seem to have a shared types library that is linked between the server and client code.
Where can I learn these common practices without having to try, fail, and try again. I'd rather just learn it once from the experts.
the most standard well organized is MVC framework. For anything else, mostly i organize folders as namespace.
eg companyName.projectName.folderName
myCompany.StackOverFlow.Extension
myCompany.StackOverFlow.OpenID
There is no set in stone 'best practice' standard for organizing namespaces. My personal approach to keeping projects organized is to limit the content of any directory/namespace to about 20 items. This means I can fit the full contents of a folder into my screen, and also see every other item surrounding it (assuming other folders are collapsed).
On the other hand, lots of folders without much content can make navigation difficult as well.
Another thing you should do is to separate your solution into projects based on dependencies. For example if you are using m-v-vm, you should have a project for each of Model, View, and ViewModel.
Files placed in AppCode should only be files directly relevant to the presentation modules. Other files (ie ViewModel, Model, Controller etc depending on the framework you're using) would be preferably placed in separate projects.
Take a look at the "WCF the Manual Way…the Right Way" http://www.code-magazine.com/Article.aspx?quickid=0809101
We have two asp.net sites (based on episerver).
Using Telerik Asp.net controls.
We have some functionality that we want to have available in both sites.
Right now one of the sites use webparts/usercontrols and the other uses usercontrols.
Is there any way to share the functionality between these sites?
What I would like is to be able to share usercontrols between the sites.
Since your talking about user controls I'm assuming you also have .ascx files that are part of the user controls, which makes this tricky.
I guess the ideal solution would be to move everything into server controls, that way you could just reference the assembly, but if you are inheriting from other controls that utilize .ascx files, your kinda stuck with them.
One way of handling it is to use the file linking capabilities in Visual Studio (Add Existing File, click the down arrow, choose link option) to share the same physical file between projects within the same solution. This is not ideal simply because you have to make sure that the ascx files are copied to both sites prior to deployment (I've done it with a post-build script before), but there is a lot that can still be pretty fragile.
Another option that is more technically complex, but probably a "better" way of handling it would be to use a Virtual Path Provider to do the work for you. Here is an article which talks about using Virtual Path Providers to do the sort of thing you are wanting to do.
Start a new class library project, reference that project in both your site projects, then pull out the common controls and code into the library project.
Like mentioned you could put the files in a VPP directory in the live environment and that way only have to copy ASCX-files to one folder for a two-site-code-infront-update. Code-behind updates would need the DLL built and overwritten for both sites though.
If you are using SVN in your development environment you could also setup a svn:external linked folder from one of the projects and that way only have the code and it's revision history in one repository.