Can some one give me the difference between a SharePoint web part and an ASP.NET web part. I found very little information describing the differences.
Thanks in advance.
MSDN - Choosing Between ASP.NET 2.0 Web Parts and Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 Web Parts
You should create ASP.NET 2.0 Web Parts whenever you can. However, there are a few exceptions where using SharePoint-based Web Parts might offer advantages.. The following table provides a decision matrix to help you choose the best option depending on your business needs.
Create a custom ASP.NET 2.0 Web Part
For most business needs.
To distribute your Web Part to sites
that run ASP.NET 2.0 or SharePoint
sites.
When you want to reuse one or more
Web Parts created for ASP.NET 2.0
sites on SharePoint sites.
To use data or functionality provided
by Windows SharePoint Services 3.0.
For example, you are creating a a Web
Part that works with site or list
data.
Create a SharePoint-based Web Part
When you want to migrate a set of Web
Parts using the SharePoint-based Web
Part infrastructure to Windows
SharePoint Services 3.0.
To create cross page connections.
To create connections between Web
Parts that are outside of a Web Part
zone.
To work with client-side connections
(Web Part Page Services Component).
To use a data-caching infrastructure
that allows caching to the content
database.
As far as i got, SharePoint WebPart overrides ASP.NET WebPart
to to persist its data inside the content database of SharePoint Foundation
you can design for and use an ASP.NET Web Part in SharePoint, but not vice versa.
SPF WebParts supports backward compatibility, cross-page connections, conns between WebParts that are outside of a zone, client-side connections (Web Part Pages Services Component), data caching (incl. to database)
they use differing WebPartManager (e.g. SPWebPartManager) and WebPartZone objects, so you can't easy copy WebParts Pages from ASP.NET to SharePoint, but rather export WebParts
Most of that you find on ...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.sharepoint.webpartpages.webpart.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms415560.aspx
Related
We have 2 different sites, one is Asp.net and another MS Sharepoint and we need to take some data from Sharepoint to the Asp.net site
The Asp.net application is one server and the Sharepoint Site is on a different server.
How can we do move that from one site to another through Web-services?
We are looking for suggestions.
You can use standard Sharepoint soap web services or Managed client object model. Please find links below:
Windows SharePoint Services Web Services -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa979690(v=office.12).aspx
Call it from js - http://weblogs.asp.net/jan/archive/2009/04/09/calling-the-sharepoint-web-services-with-jquery.aspx
SharePoint Foundation 2010 Managed Client Object Model -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee857094.aspx
Setting a Sharepoint Site Theme through a Web Service?
I'm a complete beginner when it comes to ASP.NET but I want to learn it in order to build a web application that eventually will communicate with a cloud hosted SQL server. However, I cannot find any information that outlines the difference between ASP.NET web application and ASP.NET MVC2 web application (in visual studio 2010) so I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone give me a simple explanation/outline so I can decide on a tutorial to follow?
Thanks
ASP.NET is a web platform. It provides a layer that sits on top of IIS (the web server) which facilitates the creation of web applications and web services. ASP.NET MVC is a framework specifically for building web applications. It sits ontop of ASP.NET and uses APIs provided by ASP.NET. ASP.NET Web Forms is another framework specifically for building web applications, and the new ASP.NET Web API is a platform for building web services.
ASP.NET, at its most basic level, provides a means for you to provide general HTML markup combined with server side "controls" within the event-driven programming model that can be leveraged with VB, C#, and so on. You define the page(s) of a site, drop in the controls, and provide the programmatic plumbing to make it all work.
ASP.NET MVC is an application framework based on the Model-View-Controller architectural pattern. This is what might be considered a "canned" framework for a specific way of implementing a web site, with a page acting as the "controller" and dispatching requests to the appropriate pages in the application. The idea is to "partition" the various elements of the application, eg business rules, presentation rules, and so on.
Think of the former as the "blank slate" for implementing a site architecture you've designed more or less from the ground up. MVC provides a mechanism for designing a site around a pre-determined "pattern" of application access, if that makes sense. There's more technical detail to it than that, to be sure, but that's the nickel tour for the purposes of the question.
Good luck!
ASP.NET MVC2 web application is based on MVC pattern in order to facilitate unit test, without mocking pipeline asp.net, because it's very difficult. you don't have code on Code Behind in order to separate your code graphic and your code functional.
With MVC your application become independent from view. you can replace easily technology of creating view.
Read this article it's very interesting : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd942833.aspx
If you have VS10 make a small ASP.NET (webforms) application and a small ASP.NET MVC 2 application, and examine the differences between them. It's a great way to learn.
A very good material is available here
http://www.webdevelopmenthelp.net/2013/10/Difference-between-ASP.NET-WebForm-And-ASP.NET-MVC.html
Like ASP.Net web forms, ASP.Net MVC is development model to build web application in Microsoft .net framework. The major difference between them are ASP.net MVC is based on the MVC architecture. Where we have 3 independent tiers – Model, View Controllers which interact which each other to render HTML output.
Major differences
Web forms is mainly has an event driven model. Where we have page level events(Page_load, pre render, page_init etc) and control level events. Which is not the case for MVC. The request life cycle is comparatively complex.(why complex because, the request has to goes through all the events before rendering the HTML output )
Web forms is basically has an aspx page which contains UI controls and a code behind file. All the page level events and control level events are handled here. In MVC the View, Model , controller can exist independently (gives clear separation of concern)
The SOC makes it easier for development as we can have separate developers for View(design html) and controller (implement business logic)
Because of this tight coupling nature, web forms are not suitable for unit tests. In MVC we can write unit tests at both controller level, action method levels. Here we can mock the data to be passed to view and do assert the result from the action method for their different properties like view name, model properties, null check etc
In web forms we have state full behavior. The server controls in ASPX page uses view state to retain their state during request response cycle. Since this view states are stored as hidden controls inside the page itself, and they are sent during request and response cycle, it makes them more heavy. Absence of view state and state less nature of MVC make it more light weight. Hence they are much more faster in request lifecycle.
ASP.NET is a web platform. It provides a layer that sits on top of the web server which facilitates the creation of web applications and web services. ASP.NET is a framework specifically for building web applications. It sits of ASP.NET and uses APIs provided by ASP.NET. ASP.NET Web Forms is another framework specifically for building web applications, and the new ASP.NET Web API is a platform for building web services
ASP.NET is a 2 tier application in which no separate section for the database and MVC is a 3 tier application in which view and logic is kept separate.
In ASP.NET for each .aspx form one URL is generated, but in MVC the url's are generated based on the controller and by the router configuration.
As of the start of this week I've been required to start learning how to develop websites in ASP. I have a moderate level of experience with C# through XNA, so that part of it isn't much trouble for me.
I've been following a Music Store Tutorial which takes me though setting up an "ASP.NET MVC 3" application.
I'm about done with the tutorial and have a functioning site when I run a test locally, but I don't understand what files need to be uploaded. I've worked on front-end updates for ASP websites before but they were completely different to this in terms of what files made up the site and so on.
I don't see a single .aspx page in my project which is what I assumed an ASP site was made of from experience. I'm starting to think that those projects weren't MVC projects but maybe just the "ASP.NET Web Application" style project.
Are ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC different? From what I vaguely understand, MVC is just a framework that wraps ASP.NET? Also, is ASP something or is that just a synonym for ASP.NET? Finally back to my initial confusion, what files are to be uploaded onto the server when I want to launch an ASP.NET MVC project?
Do I just upload this entire directory and the server will handle it in the same way that the inbuilt testing ASP server does? Or is the site compiled down into a couple of files somehow and I just upload one of these directories (I think I read that somewhere).
ASP is an acronym for Active Server Pages. Pre .NET, ASP was Microsoft's first iteration scripted web pages. All of those pages typically ended with the extension .ASP.
When .NET was released, ASP was overhauled significantly and renamed ASP.NET. The new version of ASP.NET attempted to model web development similar to windows application development, where you used controls and an event handling model. That was Microsoft's primary model for web page development for many years, and it still around and supported, but today it is referred to as ASP.NET Web Forms. ASP.NET Web Forms pages typically have the .ASPX extension you mentioned.
In the mid-2000s or so, Ruby on Rails took off, using an MVC based model for developing web applications. A few years later, Microsoft released an alternate version of ASP.NET, called ASP.NET MVC, which used similar concepts. Many people feel the MVC approach is a more natural method for developing web pages than the web forms model (note epic Q/A threads on this very site a few years ago). In any case, ASP.NET MVC shares parts with ASP.NET Web Forms, but looks and works pretty differently; for one thing, there are no .ASPX pages as MVC, for the most part, uses a different form of routing to determine what to display.
That's a very brief history that glosses over a whole lot of subjects. What you've posted a screenshot of, is an ASP.NET MVC project.
As far as publishing is concerned, the typical route for publishing an ASP.NET website is to open the project in Visual Studio, select Build|Publish, and tell VS where to put it. Depending on what method you use, you may have to do additional configuration in IIS on the box where you published the site.
First off, when you say ASP, you're referring to old (obsolete) tech. ASP.NET is specifically what you're referring to in your question.
ASP.NET is a Microsoft technology which works cooperatively with the IIS server to provide a "Windows Application" type experience with web sites. Your web site logic is compiled in to a .NET DLL "Class Library." When a web request hits IIS with a URL matching your application directory, IIS starts up your application internally and maintains it.
I don't understand what files need to be uploaded
Visual Studio actually has a built in publisher available for your use. See the Build -> Publish menu in VS / Web Developer.
I don't see a single .aspx page in my project which is what I assumed an ASP site was made of from experience.
ASP.NET Web Forms uses the aspx extension for Pages, their frontend rendering component. On the other hand, ASP.NET MVC uses the concept of Views, which are not relient on a specific component. See the next paragraph.
Are ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC different?
Yes. No. Maybe. ASP.NET contains all the "magic" which allows IIS - the web server - run the web application and serve up web pages. Volumes could (and have) been written on this. ASP.NET also supports much configuration through the means of Http Modules and Providers. These components are declared and configured through the web apps web.config file and are typically automagically created and persisted by IIS and ASP.NET. They collectively make up the glue that makes ASP.NET just work out of the box.
MVC was built on top of the existing foundation classes of ASP.NET. Some features have been loaned, a few have been replaced and more than a handful have been created in order to support the model-view-controller pattern.
For example, MVC gives us support for View Engines - a runtime library which allows us to write our Views (web pages) in a particular format. The ASPX View Engine existed during MVC's launch. Later came Razor, employing the .cshtml extension. Users of the MVC Framework have implemented a wide variety of their own view engines as well. This is possible due to the modular nature of ASP.NET and MVC.
Do I just upload this entire directory and the server will handle it in the same way that the inbuilt testing ASP server does? Or is the site compiled down into a couple of files somehow and I just upload one of these directories (I think I read that somewhere).
I would recommend using the Build -> Publish menu in Visual Studio. You may use web deploy if your host supports it, but FTP and File System methods are available as well.
The bin folder contains the class libraries required to run your web application on the server. The web.config file provides the configuration to do so. However your Views are not compiled in to the assembly. They are published as-is and are rendered lazily by the view engine.
You are probably familiar with ASP.NET WebForms, this is an MVC project. You can find more here:
ASP.NET MVC
In order to upload the site, you need to publish the website from inside Visual Studio to a local file location and then upload everything to the website.
If the target server doesn't have MVC installed, you can right click on the website project in Visual Studio and select "Add Deployable Dependencies".
This will ensure that the server has all the required files to run an MVC project.
ASP.NET Web Forms is a part of the ASP.NET web application framework. It is one of the three different programming models you can use to create ASP.NET web applications, the others being ASP.NET MVC and ASP.NET Web Pages.
I have read above lines in asp.net site. My understanding is A web page may refer to a html document retrieved from server and A Web Form is a thing in ASP.NET Application used to generate a HTML document(in dynamic manner)
But definition of web forms said by asp.net site confused me. OK I can understand MVC is a programming model used to create ASP.NET Web application.
What is a Web Form ? and What is a Web page ?
How Web page is a programming model to create ASP.Net web application
ASP.Net is Microsoft's technology stack for building dynamic web sites.
Within that stack, they support 3 different ways of generating a web page.
Web Forms is the oldest - it's been around since ASP.Net was born. It's tightly coupled into Visual Studio, and has "drag and drop" page building. Most people who care about how their HTML is constructed dislike Web Forms, because the "drag and drop" components can make it hard to generate semantic, valid HTML - though the latest version is a lot better.
ASP.Net MVC is an alternative to Web Forms - and it's a pretty decent MVC framework.
Web Pages is another alternative; it's more of a scripting/templating solution, similar to PHP. It doesn't have the overhead/safetynet of a proper framework behind it (like MVC), and it uses RAZOR to support the view engine.
For any non-trivial new projects, ASP.Net MVC is the industry standard.
Is there any way that I can use SharePoint document library and document sharing functionality from an ASP.NET page?
There's 3 ways you can have your standalone ASP.NET (standalone meaning not integrated into sharepoint) interact with sharepoint.
1 using the SharePoint object model (sharepoint APi dll's). This way allows you to control every part of how your ASP.NET site interacts with SharePoint (document security etc.) The major drawback is that you ASP.NET site needs to be running on the SAME SERVER as SharePoint (or if sharepoint is used in a farm any machine that is running sharepoint in that farm). Simply including the SharePoint DLL's will NOT work when run on any other machine (even when that machine also has sharepoint installed but is not part of the farm you want to communicate with!)
2 Web Services. These OOTB services can be used from anywhere but are not very extensive functionality wise. They allow you to perform a lot of actions and retrieve a lot of data, but when it comes to more finegrained control they just don't cut it. It might be enough for what you want to do though.
3 Use web services and create your own webservice that is deployed to sharepoint for any tasks not doable with the OOTB services. This requires access to the sharepoint machine in the form of deploying custom code / assemblies though.
I assume that your asp.net application is running on another server because if thats not the case the it would probably be easiest to just use the SharePoint functionality directly and maybe include your app into SharePoint
SharePoint exposes a lot of it's functionality through Web Services, so you can get, add, delete and update information through these.
You can include any SharePoint page into a page in another portal using an IFrame. The main issue there is the fact that you will get the MOSS navigation in that IFrame, which typically is not desired. To overcome that, you can create a special MOSS page that hides all those elements and show just the element you want to expose. To accomplish that, you can create a “minimal” master page and a simple layout with a single web part zone.