Related
Currently whenever a client wants a website I provide my own CMS however I have been wondering whether a 3rd party CMS may be easier.
At the moment I have built it in ASP.Net & ASP.Net MVC (I'm thinking of moving to Ruby on Rails). A master page has 5 pagecontent areas, top, left, middle, right & footer.
I then create usercontrols such as Image_Top, Image_Left etc. In the CMS the user can create a page and then choose how they want that page to look by choosing from the list of usercontrols. This gives them complete control over their page.
Would you say this is a good approach or is there a better way to allow them to design their pages? I was thinking of instead of maintaining my CMS I would recommend using Joomla, Drupal, DNN, SiteInfinty or whatever to manage the backend. However do 3rd party CMS's allow for that much control or am I better off sticking to my own CMS? Is using a 3rd party CMS as easy as plug and play?
Thanks
DOWN THIS PATH LIES MADNESS.
As someone who has been a developer for two commercial CMS products, and implemented at least 4 others for projects of varying complexity and completeness I can only say DON'T DO IT.
The CMS is the technical equivalent of invading Afghanistan ... everyone has had a turn, but no-one wins.
Find some technology you are comfortable with, learn it's nuances and annoyances, and concentrate on the things that are interesting and add value.
Editing content is a commodity.
Personally I like Wordpress, but depends on your use-cases and requirements.
What you are descriping is possible with modX using template variables.
It got a quite steep learning curve in the beginning, but i think you'll like it.
It's open source and runs on PHP and MySQL.
Give it a go.
I think you need to investigate, perhaps build and try each so that you can accurately match the capabilities against your requirements. You may find that different CMS fit different scenarios, but you will need to determine which is which. Unfortunately the general answer is "It depends" and only you can really decide which is the best option.
In some respects CMS systems like Joomla have security and version features that may offer you an advantage. Potentially you can incorporate these features into your framework if you have the time.
There is nothing really wrong with rolling your own framework. If you've saved time and created something that your clients like, then this is a good thing. It brings the benefit to you in that you get the learn how to implement the CMS features with a variety of platforms. Why toss this out if it has worked for you?
Here's my particular situation...
I have a decent amount of experience with webforms, and I must say, a lot of it has been pretty frustrating. I like that there are lots of built-in controls, but then I discover that they don't quite do what I want, out of the box. I end up rolling my own controls (that inherit from the built-in controls), such as GridViewThatCanSortItself or GridViewThatHasASelectionColumn (these may not have been the actual names, but you get the idea). I've often wondered, while struggling mightily to build such classes, whether figuring out the often convoluted event model was worth it. My attempts to use css to style things have been frustrating as well. There are some ASP.NET controls that will result in one html tag for one set of attributes and a different tag with another set of attributes. You don't realize this until you notice your css only works half the time.
So, my brain starts to wonder, could ASP.NET MVC be the answer? Reading some of the posts on SO has basically given me the impression that, while webforms definitely has its issues, I'd only be trading one set of problems for another. It even seems like Microsoft is trying to talk me out of it:
Quote from the asp.net site (http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-01-cs.aspx)
ASP.NET MVC...works well for Web applications that are supported by large teams of developers and Web designers who need a high degree of control over the application behavior.
That is really not me. Most of my projects are relatively small, and I'm usually the only programmer. I sometimes need to create very custom or unusual UI's, but I definitely don't have a team of programmers who can build components for me.
There is also the issue of javascript. I have a definite working knowledge of html and css, but I can't say the same for javascript. As clumsy and bloated as they are, I've been able to do some smooth enough looking things with UpdatePanels. I'm not sure how much time I'd need to spend just learning the javascript to be able to handle even simple AJAX scenarios in ASP.NET MVC.
I'm about to start working on a relatively simple and small web app, so now would be the time to take the plunge if I'm going to take the plunge. This app will use a SQL Server Express (2005 or 2008) back-end, and I'm thinking of also trying out SqlMetal as an ORM solution. So, that's already one thing I'm going to have to learn, although I at least have experience with--and really like--LinqToXml and LinqToObject. The pages of the web app will have some data grids (some with link columns), input boxes, labels, drop-down lists, check boxes, radio buttons, and submit/action buttons. I don't foresee anything more complicated than that. There will be about six or seven pages total.
Questions:
Given my experience, how painful will it be to learn ASP.NET MVC? Will it be worth it?
I've read some earlier questions comparing webforms to MVC, so I'm curious, How has MVC evolved over the past year or so? Is there anything new that would make the learning curve less steep?
Do I literally have to write code to generate all html by hand or are there code/libraries readily available in the community to assist with the process? (I know I read something about "html helpers"--that may be what I'm asking about here.)
Any other advice?
Update
Another question that occurred to me: Is the transition from ASP.NET webforms to MVC anything like going from standard WPF (using code-behind) to MVVM? I found learning WPF itself to be pretty challenging (and I still couldn't say I really get everything about it), but learning to work with WPF using the MVVM pattern was a relatively painless transition. So, I'm wondering how similar a jump it is to go from webforms to ASP.NET MVC.
My advice is to work through the Nerd Dinner Tutorial from the first chapter of Professional ASP.NET MVC (and then buy the whole book, it's great) to get a feel for how it fits together and how it works for you. This covers most of what you are concerned about above.
You will have to get your hands dirty with regards working with raw HTML but this is no way near as terrifying as it may sound. Especially as you're having issues where Web Forms takes control.
Yes, Asp.Net Mvc might be a solution for your problems.
I would highly recommend you not to rush
(without better knowledge you will end up at disappointment).
But in either way - it definitely be worth it. You will learn a lot.
Start with bunch of sample applications while reading some books (start with Sanderson`s, continue with Mvc In Action). Familiarize yourself with asp.net mvc. It demands different way of thinking about web development you are likely used to. And don't be afraid of 3rd party tools - get used to them because asp.net mvc does not focus on 'ready 2 drop through designer and use' solutions and lack of super cool and shiny (with awful js/html underneath) controls at start really frightens.
After few weeks of playing around with it - you will actually be able to answer this question yourself.
And that's the one and only answer that's worth something.
Personally - i prefer asp.net mvc framework and don't want to go back despite that in some cases it does take more work (i.e. - implementation of custom pagination (which can be easily made way more sophisticated than one that pagination control provides)).
Framework demands better knowledge of OOP, architecture and design knowledge, good sense of code tidiness because there is much less 'signs' that provide direction of one and correct way of doing things - they must be figured out in most cases by yourself. So - it is easier to drown in your own sh*t, html tag soup etc. if you are unsure and/or don't know what you are doing.
I kind a disagree with that statement about large developer team. This is where knowledge about OOP, 'convention over configuration' and extensability of Mvc framework comes into play. As i see it - it's way more easier (this is really really subjective) to write code that's reusable. And with features like templates (in mvc version no2) count of code lines is reduced drastically.
And learn javascript. You are missing a lot. Play around with jQuery if you haven't done that yet (greatly reduces cross-browser compability problems). Firebug plugin for FireFox is a great aid at this (for debugging purposes). AJAX`ifying your mvc website might seem awkward at first (there's a great tips in 'Mvc in action' book about this topic like form hijacking that can be used to achieve so called progressive enchancement with AJAX), but once you get used to JS - it feels superb. One thing to mention - JS is quite sharp tool (if you don't drop what you know about development in .NET environment and don't use it as it's supposed to). It's easy to screw up JS code base in no time.
Another thing - there's a bunch of myths about mvc framework along those who have touched only web forms.
It is not hard to work with raw html.
It is not hard to read form values (binding mechanism is excellent and easily customizable/extensible).
I'm sure there are more. Just can't remember at the moment. :)
#DanThMan, I had the same reservations you did when I first took a look at the framework but having worked with it now for some time there is no way, given the choice, that you'd get me back into WebForms.
I also write, from time to time, small applications where I am the only developer and I thank God I stuck to the MVC framework and took the time to really learn it.
In my mind it has made programming fun again and I can now maintain sites quickly and easily which is a first.
For my money this is the way to go but it's a steep learning curve and you need time to get to really understand it. If you have the time I'd say go for it.
There's some good answers here and some good ones in other threads as well. I'll take a stab at a question that hasn't really been addressed yet.
How has MVC evolved over the past year
or so? Is there anything new that
would make the learning curve less
steep?
I made a conscious switch to MVC about 8 months ago and haven't looked back. Version 1 was stable and I began to use it on a couple of sites with the help of a couple of books and the internet of course. Resources were good back then but since I switched things have really blown up in a good way.
There are a couple of books out there for version 1 that are top notch (Steve Sanderson's - Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework and the Nerd Dinner book come to mind). And there is definitely asp.net MVC blood in the water so I imagine there will be some great version 2 books down the line.
The developer community, especially here, is excellent and it's getting better. "asp.net-mvc" is currently the 16th most used tag on this site and often has a very high amount of views per question. As of today I have yet to have a question that hasn't been answered. There's a lot of smart people looking at the MVC questions who are willing to help.
The contrib library over at codeplex is also getting better and getting some nice participation. They've done a great job of filling in some holes that version 1 has left. I can only think that this will continue to get stronger as MVC gets older.
The new features for version 2 are in my opinion awesome. I won't name my favorites as they won't mean much to you if you haven't played with MVC much but just know that the development team has listened and included a number of great enhancements for the new version. They are very actively seeking feedback and always looking for improvements. Do not expect this change anytime soon. (One day I called up Microsoft and said "Shorten '[AcceptVerb(Http.Post)]' to '[HttpPost]'" and bam, Mvc 2 was my idea.)
The point I'm trying to make is: since I made the switch I've seen things get better and better. I'm incredibly happy with my decision and I'm excited for the future of this project. Version 1 is good, Version 2 is better and I can't wait to see what 3, 4, and 5 ... hold.
And I'll leave you with this: I've now converted a number of friends from WebForms to MVC. Every single one of the them is glad they made the switch and the ones that work with all aspects of an application (C# code, html, css, javascript, data access, unit testing, etc) will never go back and are loving the asp.net MVC life.
Given my experience, how painful will it be to learn ASP.NET MVC? Will it be worth it?
Yes and yes. It will be painful and it will be worth it and here's why. You will be a better programmer for it and your skills will more easily transfer to other platforms. MVC is a very common pattern that you will find over and over again in just about every popular language.
You will be working more closely with html, javascript, and css, but that's web programming and you're better off biting the bullet sooner than later.
having worked my last few projects (prior to embracing mvc) using my own controls being rolled via the HtmlTextWriter, I actually found th transition quite straightfwd. i have to say tho', i did put it off until v1.0 was well and truly 'out there' and only made strides from aug/sept 09. i'm glad i got into it as the main reasons i had been using the HtmlTextWriter in webforms was to overcome some of the basic issues of class names and id's when using jquery. i'm not going to say that v1 is a silver bullet but it certainly just works in tandem with my mindset at the moment. as for literature, i too read the sanserson and nerd dinner books and took plenty away from them. at the same time, i also got into subsonic v3 and found a fair amount of tips on rob's site to get me going.
i seriously can't imagine having to go 'back' to the webforms paradigm as i had been looking for a way to drop the page lifecycle and controls bloat for such a long time (i had even looked at php framewirks at one point as a way out of the webforms dilema - kohana is a great little php framework).
anyway, just my scottish 2 pence worth...
merry xmas all and a happy 2010
jimi
Some developers seem to have an aversion to component-oriented programming. For others, it feels natural. If you find yourself constantly fighting the standard components, then it's easy enough to roll your own from scratch--which you would basically end up doing in MVC anyway. If you find yourself fighting the unit test model with web forms, you will find things easier with MVC.
However, MVC isn't a cure-all; there's a lot to learn. Some apps will be less complex than with web forms, and some will be much more complex.
I've found that web forms don't really gel with many developers until they deeply understand the page life cycle and use of ViewState. Until that point, there seems to be a lot of trial and error -- but it's easier to learn that than MVC with IOC, etc. As far as customizing output, it's often easier to use control adapters than to subclass the control. In case it helps, I walk through these issues from the web forms side in my book: Ultra-Fast ASP.NET.
In the end, I think it's partly a mindset thing, and which model fits the way you solve problems and think about your application better.
I have read several other posts here, so i get the idea on the pro vs. cons, especially having full control over the rendered html code etc. (in MVC).
My question is regarding the UI controls: In MVC, i will have to write all UI controls myself (or the html equivalent). Now is that not going to be very difficult?
The reason why these 3rd party vendors for asp.net are there is just because of the fact that it is difficult to write UI controls for ASP.NET all by ourselves, and be able to target to all web browsers, and also that we are better off concentrating our time on the business logic rather than spending the whole lot of time writing the UI controls HTML code ourselves.
I understand that this feature gets us the full control over the final html, but is it not counter-productive to do this UI bit ourselves. If it was so easy to write them ourselves, how come these 3-rd party vendors are all living now. We could have done this all by ourselves all these years of WebForms days.
I am sure i am missing something here or being a little stupid, but please enlighten me as to what i am missing in specific regard to the UI bit being written by ourselves.
Just because i get full control over the program by writing in IL code, do we go and do that? We still use C# and things like that - So that theory of "having full control over html" - i am not bought into that idea.
Please help in getting my head around this UI bit.
Other things i understand, about the separation of concern, TDD based development possible with MVC etc.
But why would i go around writing the UI controls all by myself - it is a bit a work isn't it?
The thing is:
If you want to master in web development you have to master HTML + CSS + Javascript
And with WebForms you have to learn the WebForms way to do it, but with MVC you have the power of .Net with the freedom to generate the HTML + CSS + Javascript you want.
Here's a new rant on the subject http://www.charliedigital.com/PermaLink,guid,6dcb0333-9d70-40c7-975b-0ff4011c4661.aspx
Problem is, ASP.NET MVC is much younger product than ASP.NET. For many years 3rd party companies have been developing TONS of reusable components, and I believe that it is only a matter of time before comparable set of controls will be available for ASP.NET MVC.
If you really need very rich GUI with 3rd party controls, and you can't rewrite them in acceptable time - stick with asp.net. Altough in my opinion, MVC gives you tons of power it wouldn't be wise to spend much more time rewriting controls than you can save. If you can live without controls, and like MVC concepts - use MVC, and you'll most certainly see 3rd party solutions as soon as they'll there is growing market (maybe thay've already noticed that, I don't know) for mvc extensions.
I believe that the UI and the user experience are vital to the success of a web app. Making the page intuitive and easy to use, minimizing the amount of navigation the user has to do to get the job done, and providing effective feedback and interactivity can make all the difference between a site that users want to use and one that they avoid.
If you are trying to attract users on a public website, a pleasing appearance and excellent usability are key to building repeat visits.
If you are writing an intranet app to be used by hundreds or thousands of employees all day long -- as I mostly do -- making the UI efficient and easy to use really means a lot to your users.
So, I wouldn't downplay the importance of the UI. It isn't a nuisance. It's a key part of the user experience. I suggest that a web developer should embrace whatever tools and strategies that will get the job done. That often means coding the UI controls yourself. Or working with a teammate who likes doing that part of the work.
I recently refactored a very complex website using ASP.NET + handworked javascript to MVC + jQuery. The complexity of the code was reduced by 50%-75% and became much more testable. I replaced all the complex webcontrols I had to write (with a steep learning curve I had to overcome) with very simple HtmlHelper methods.
Don't forget, when you use custom webcontrols, you are given a very static UI by the control developer. With raw HTML, you can take advantage of styles and ui developed by the whole web industry.
Increased simplicity, decreased development time, testability, flexibility in UI... I don't want to go back.
You also have to remember that ASP.NET MVC is just the first release. I don't think there is intrinsically any reason why you couldn't have the equivalent of server controls to enable certain tasks - remember, there are many server controls that don't generate any mark-up (such as the Repeater, PlaceHolder, ListView). These type of controls could be useful in a future MVC setting, I think.
I believe that ASP.net came around when lots of developers were still used to doing desktop applications and just beginning web development. AT that point in time abstracting the details of the web with controls and post backs was a great way to get people started. At that point we weren't trying to perfect the web, we just wanted to get on it!
Now that the web has matured and we've all slowly learned about html, css, javascript and the likes we want to optimize our websites for our own needs and we don't want to depend on ASP.net Forms controls to control the fine details of our websites.
In summary, I think this is about the natural evolution of many developers from the desktop to the web
I for one, am very thankful that you cannot use ASP.NET controls in MVC.
Controls, as many have already pointed out, are just server side blocks of code that render HTML and javascript on your behalf. Things like a datagrid are great, until someone asks you to make a slight modification, like having a delete confirmation alert, and then it seems impossible to do certain tasks.
The good news is that there are very powerful jQuery tools written to help you. jQgrid is a great grid replacement that does WAY more than the ASP.NET grid...
http://www.trirand.com/blog/
jsTree is a treeview that is fantastic. Again with the jQuery....
http://www.jstree.com/
And the truth is that most things you can do with razor, HTML, javascript and CSS. It's so simple that it's just stupid.
It's hard for people like myself who were web forms developers to grasp MVC and why you should use it because it's so simple. It's difficult to let go of the complexity of conventional ASP.NET. But it feels so good when you do.
And don't mix web forms with MVC. You can do it, but you will wish you hadn't.
Here is the key thing that I think you are missing. When ASP.NET is no longer the MS way of doing things...you will eventually be forced to move on and do something else. I have programmed in perl, ASP classic, then ColdFusion, then PHP, then ASP.NET web forms, then ASP.NET MVC...the only thing that they all have in common is the underlying database, design patterns, best practices for a given set of technology AND...HTML, JavaScript, CSS, and Photoshop.
No one is asking you to learn MVC. No one is telling you to not use WebForms. However, complaining that you have to write a raw UI is not going to get you very far in this industry. You should be learning something new every day...and it sounds like some time spent on HTML and CSS would be a great place to start your focus!
The biggest problem you have with relying on third party controls is when a client asks you to do something that the third party controls don't cover. If you can't replicate their complexity plus the added feature request on your own you are skirting a possible failure in your professional livelihood! You will need to know how to do it all...eventually!
I generally suggest that you embrace new technologies. You don't have to use them...but you should at least know how. This way you will know what the best tool is for any given project.
I've been wondering - what's an equivalent of 'control' from webforms in asp.net mvc? It's not a partial view for sure. What else it can be? Controller + partial views via partial requests?
Maybe i'm dumb, blind or both, but i haven't seen any 'control' for asp.net mvc. Just a lot of code snippets to accomplish one specific thing or another.
I believe that asp.net mvc is quite unfriendly with rapid development. Only way out of this problem - a lot of open source code (like MvcContrib), tutorials, sample applications & most important - slightly smarter developers.
You do not have to replace Webforms controls with something else from MVC. Just mix them - http://www.hanselman.com/blog/PlugInHybridsASPNETWebFormsAndASPMVCAndASPNETDynamicDataSideBySide.aspx
Well, I was also wondering how to use 3rd party controls in ASP.NET MVC. Obviously, and contrary to some answers here, it had to be possible.
As much time has passed since the question was asked, the industry has evolved. So I've searched and found (but havent' yet tested) solutions such as Telerik Extensions for ASP.NET MVC .
I'm posting this answer here mainly to support other MVC newbees such as myself - Just Google
"asp.net mvc" controls
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Let's say that you will start a new ASP.NET web site/application tomorrow. Would you chose Web Forms or MVC, and why?
MVC baby! And JQuery!
Edit: OK, it's fair enough to say my response warrants a little more info.
I'd choose MVC for the following reasons:
I have worked in Rails and found it highly productive. ASP MVC has borrowed so much from Rails that it feels like a direct port in some ways (and that's a good thing in my mind).
AJAX is important, but I hate the Microsoft "Atlas" approach to AJAX (whatever the product name is these days). If you're going to do AJAX, you need to understand the HTML and the JavaScript. Frameworks that hide that from you are hurting you more than they are helping you (IMO).
JQuery has taken over the world it seems in terms of JavaScript frameworks. ASPMVC is well-integrated with it. I want to learn it, so there's great alignment here.
The whole "control" model is a neat idea, but it is more complicated than it appears on the surface. For example, look around on SO for questions about how a UserControl can find its highest level containing control and so forth. The control hierarchy abstraction has leaks in it. Grids are great if they do what you want out of the box, but it's very very hard to customize them to do something they weren't made to do. And the best grid controls on the market (the ones that are highly customizable) are large, bloated, overly complicated beasts. Maybe that shows us that we should drop back down to HTML and let loops in our views do that kind of thing for us.
I believe I can build complete, beautiful apps in ASPMVC much faster than in ASP.Net (and I've got some years of ASP.Net under my belt). Look at StackOverflow ... built quickly on ASPMVC with JQuery, and it's fast, scalable and a joy to use IMO.
Oh, and it's completely open source! It is ok to read the source code, blog about it, and even modify then redistribute it!
I would choose MVC simply because it's designed to be testable and mock'able. That would be the major factor in my decision.
WebForms are much more difficult to Unit Test because they're rooted in several concrete classes that are difficult, it at all possible, to Mock. These include HttpContext, HttpResponse, HttpRequest and HttpCookie.
MVC is designed to be testable and it's API greatly facilitates doing so.
Good article on the testability of MVC: http://dotnetslackers.com/articles/aspnet/ASPNETMVCFrameworkPart2.aspx
Personally, I have decided to use both...
If it's a website (viewed online), I have decided to use ASP.NET MVC.
If it was an application (web application with a single purpose) I have decided to use web forms.
This decision is purely based on the case use and the solution you trying to deliver. If you are interested in good SEO and a faster website, MVC is much cleaner HTML and faster than web forms.
However if you after a complex functionality with a lot of filters, grids, postbacks on the same page and you are well experienced in Web Forms, just stick with it.
If I were starting today I would probably still stick with webforms because of the volume of knowledge and resources surrounding it.
That said I really want to give MVC a shot and as others have mentioned the excitement within the community means it wont take long before there is a lot of support for it.
MVC FTW!, Reasons?
Total Control over my HTML
No Web Forms magic
No complex page life-cycles
Closer to the metal
It is the natural thing to use with HTTP
Is MVC the "flavor of the day", or does it have staying power?
I have worked with MVC, and have a vast amount of webform experience. I often wonder about the staying power of MVC.
You should consider this when choosing one or the other. What do you want to support for the entire product lifespan?
I can't say which I'd really go with having not tried MVC yet. But I'd be a bit worried about using it for a really big enterprise project as yet.
Scroll through pass questions and you'll see that there a lots of questions/issues with MVC (compared to good o' WebForms that is). That alone has me worried. And a lot of the questions seems to be for special UI needs. Again having not tried it I don't know how mature it is yet but I'd still be a bit worried.
Maybe someone who has used it for an enterprise project can shed some light.
While MVC is the new kid on the block there are still a lot of benefits to designing with the Web Forms model.
Familiarity with the tool
consistency of look/feel with existing projects
Tooling/designer
Postbacks
Event driven
Controls to abstract
3rd party controls that work
Rapid development
Declaritive style
Rachel Appel did a great presentation at MIX on this very topic. You can view the video here:
Choosing between ASP.NET Web Forms and MVC
http://videos.visitmix.com/MIX09/T23F
I would choose Webforms for local/intranet applications with rich business logic and MVC for public/internet site (blogs/forums/presentations/simple services). "WebForms application model" is preferable in areas where rich state support is critical
I have started a new Web site for our own product a week ago and I couldn't be happier with ASP.NET MVC. Everything seems natural, I always know where to go and look if something doesn't work or does not look the way I intended.
Frankly, the biggest chunk of time I've spent has been CSS. Coding, integration with jQuery... peanuts.
OTOH, if you are not experienced developer, ASP.NET will not appeal to you as it encourages you to go all the way and control all aspects of your site - HTML markup, CSS etc., which in turn means no controls, drag and drop visual editing etc.
Unlike traditional ASP.NET where you are left to yourself and often end up mixing all kinds of UI, persistence (DB) and business logic code in various pages, MVC will guide you and help you structure your app much more consistently. This will not sit with you if you don't like "opinionated" frameworks and/or just want to get the job done without caring about structure of the site, maintainability, scalability etc.
Note that it's perfectly possible not to care about this if all you're building is a one-off intranet site, but for public Internet site I'd choose MVC over classic ASP.NET every time.
MVC
... it just seems so obvious that's where the future is
In ASP.NET MVC you sacrifice your controls toolbox,
URL routing is already in ASP.NET (web forms)
So I would stick with ASP.NET web forms ( I'm not saying that MVC isn't good.)
jQuery, do you think the IT folks will let you use it?
ASP.NET MVC because I want to learn how to use it.
I would currently choose ASP.NET MVC for 2 reasons: 1) I want to learn to master it. 2) There is already a great community forming around ASP.NET MVC and everyone seems to have very positive entergy regarding it's use. I can't wait to see where it all ends up and I want to be part of it.
I would like to go with MVC. I always seam to be fighting the abstraction when I work with WebForms.
To use WebForms effectively you actually need to know more about how the web works than if you use something like PHP. I find myself using <asp:Literal instead of <asp:Label to avoid putting a <span> around the text and running labs to figure out the order of events, etc.
it really depends on the project, since i havent build anything with MVC and if the project has a short time delivery, i will probably find some hinders in MVC that could make me not to deliver the project in Time.
I wait for MVC on .net for a long time.
I think more than 90% people will choose MVC rather than webform.
If it was a personal project then I would use MVC. Just to learn more about it. If it was a project at work I would use WebForms, possibly in combination with DynamicData for the administrative parts. The reason is that I would be more productive with a technology I know, and using DynamicData for the administrative part would let me setup that part in minutes.
As always it depends upon the type of application you are developing and the individual circumstances. A lot of our internal applications are being developed in SharePoint as that is our internal platform of choice for intranet type applications.
This automatically limits us to ASP.Net on the standard model.
I really want to get to grips with MVC, but I don't have a justification for this at work and I have 2 kids and a wife at home so no time to develop at home.
Sometimes circumstances force your hand, if only we all had the choice of exactly what platform, framework etc. to develop with.
I am currently working on a project in Asp.net MVC with jQuery and jQuery-ui, and it's a lot of fun.
If you're familiar with html and javascript (or other MVC frameworks like rails), MVC makes much more sense than the old webforms. And you control the output, not some vague control on a form, so if there is an error on the page or if you want to change the layout you can :).
MVC. We're going to redo an application that is SEO intensive and MVC seams to fit right in out of the box. Plus I want to hang out with the cool kids on the playground.
I just released a major public site on the MVC platform after using webforms for all previous projects. Without a doubt it is the way to go, IMO.
With webforms, I have found the sites tend to become a mess over time as you have blocks of code in the code-behind that handles both view logic and controller logic. As the site grows and the logic gets more complex it is difficult to trace what is happening and where.
I find that that MVC forces you to break things up in a more logical manner. Controller and model classes allow you to get a better control on the organization of the application. In addition, views are more flexible because there is a specific way of providing data to them, through models.
Also, like others have mentioned, you have more control over the markup and urls and it plays nicer with client libraries like mvc.
The only time I would use MVC is if I was building and intranet site that was focused on reporting data of some sort where the built in controls that come with asp.net would save development time and I wasn't as concerned with the look and feel. I would never use asp.net webforms again for a major public facing site.
Both!
I am making the long haul to MVC. I have too much code that readily works in Web Forms. MVC is fantasic, but it sill leaves a lot in the productivty areas such as templated grids and lists, basic UI controls (calender, autocomplete, etc.) and scafolding. These are all areas where Web Forms excels at, but comes off the rails if you want precise control and want to keep things simple.
MVC 3 and EF Code-Only could be a great marriage if they are willing to bridge the gaps between the two. Most people that use Ruby use it for Rails, and ActiveRecord makes that easy to work with.
Also I would love to see a parallel "Feature Pack" project for MVC with MS support, similar to the way they did the Microsoft Ajax Toolkit, that would say have quarterly updates. I find MVC Futures and MVCContrib both lacking. But I know they only have so much budget. So, here's to hoping that MVC 3 changes all that.
Just say NO to ASP.NET MVC if you are developing for Intranet. For Internet, sure.
Hmm.. At the moment I am confused like you are and about to start building a new site :). I was going to start with Webforms, but now I see where the crowd is heading and I think I am going to give MVC a whirl now.
Thanks for asking this question.
Now that it's RTMed and now that there are some very good resources on it I would say ASP.net MVC would be my strong preference, but it's not cut and dried.
Web forms hasn't gone though, it's still there, it's still supported and I've worked on several major sites and used Web Forms very successfully, so if there were other external factors such as a customer preference, or perhaps a team that had solid Web Forms experience then I'd still be happy to work with Web Forms. That said I have already worked on one project with MVC (while it was still in preview), and I much prefer it - my reasons are similar to those given above so I won't repeat them all. I will say that if testability isn't the best reason it's certainly in the top one:).
I would choose MVC since designers and developers can work in parallel on the same project. Designers can work on the view part (JavaScript, CSS, HTML) while backend developers can work on the controller code.
I would like to be doing ASP.Net MVC, even though I'm still very new to MVC. But it's not to be in the foreseeable future.
I'm actually going to be starting a rebuild of a web site in the next couple of weeks that was horribly written in ASP.NET 2.0 and I am going to be using ASP.NET MVC. For a lot of the same reasons as above. I would rather not use custom .NET controls and handle the HTML/JavaScript (using jQuery) myself. I do a lot of Java web development as well so having a good understanding of the underlying HTML/JavaScript/CSS is important to me.
I am working on the rewrite of a large VB6-based application. We are moving from Windows Forms to web-based deployment using ASP .Net. There are about 50 core users and all are internal to the company.
We need an efficient way to try out different designs in order to investigate the information architecture of the site, the workflow, and the overall look and feel. Ideally, the prototype would look good enough to show to the users in order to gather feedback.
A few ajax-style drop-down menus or controls would be useful to demonstrate our ideas, but not at the expense of quick prototyping.
It feels too early to break out Visual Studio, and we need something more than pen and paper or Visio... Any suggestions?
Jeff Atwood had a nice article a while back about this:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001091.html
We used Visio the last project and while the Visio document screens look nearly identical to the end result I'd recommend against doing a pixel-perfect prototype. Simple rectangles and simple coloring are better and gives the designed and the web developers more freedom.
In our case some of the screens were developed by a person without good knowledge of limitations of web apps. Depending on the team members, this could lead to endless discussions about what is possible and what is not.
Have you taken a look at the excellent Balsamiq?
I use JustProto.com - it's very simple but works very fast. I regret there are no ready components to use but you can create your own masters.
Anyway - I did a few prototypes with JP and for me it's fine enough.
In the past we've used full page graphics - either pretty designs from our design team, or just Visio/PowerPoint (don't ask) mockups - dropped into HTML pages as a background and then added ImageMap links and dropped some dynamic controls on top - Drop-downs, pop-up/accordian menus etc to link most of them together.
This worked quite well in for A/B usability testing with our users - some were slightly confused by the pretty design versions, as they looked more like usable web pages, but they quickly got the hang of it.
For large systems, you really need something with masters/templates. Two good threads here on SO:
What tools are there:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/156937/balsamiq-mockups-alternative-for-building-wireframes
Why mockup tool instead of IDE:
Whats the best way to create interactive application prototypes?
And here is the most complete list of mockup tools I know of:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GuiPrototypingTools
(I am the author of this one: MockupScreens).
You can use Balsamiq mockups, is a very good software and easy to use for prototyping, mockups can make dynamic and complexity you need, not very expensive and has an evaluation version and limited version online.
If you want a much more complex software has components and functional and you can use Axure is a prototyping software very complete, you can export and test the prototype in the browser with all the features, I invite you to go to the official pages there you can find examples.
Balsamiq link: http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/
Axure link: http://www.axure.com/