Okay, maybe it's a bit pedantic, but do ASP.NET user controls HAVE to have an ascx extension?
My reason for wanting to know this is purely academic. I made the statement to someone that they usually have an ascx extension, but then I had the curious thought of if that was always true or not.
No. It's default, but it's not a requirement. I would recommend that you stick to this standard, however, as it makes it easy for anybody coming onto your project to understand what files are user controls just by glancing at them.
Related
I have quite a number of user controls that I need to embed in Umbraco macros. Each user control has quite a bit of in page javascript that needs loaded into the page.
I have been building up the javascript with StringBuilder.Appendline then registering a startup script with code behind but this stinks and I feel there has to be a better way of going about this.
Has anyone any ideas please?
Thanks,
B
If the javascript isn't dynamic, that is that it changes based on the usercontrol you would probably be best to extract it and put it in either one .js file for the site or in a number of them. Doing so allows it to be cached by the browser.
If it is dynamic then I would personally keep it isolated inside the control rather than try to write it out all at once. I don't believe there is any major performance hit from having several script blocks, although I could be wrong.
I have written a data browsing library that is being used in several projects. The library or component includes some classes as well as some ASPX pages.
Until now, we copy all the files into each project to reuse it, with the obvious drawbacks and updating nightmares. I want to encapsulate all the library into a component that the projects can use.
What's the best way to do it? I know I can create a DLL, but I think it's only for the classes, don't know how to go with the ASPXs pages.
We are using Visual Studio 2008 and Framework 2.0
Thanks in advance
This is a perfect case for custom controls.
Change the pages into user controls, and embed the new user controls back into pages that have nothing in them but the reference to the user control.
Once that works, you can change the user controls into server controls, little by little. They will be composite controls, as the user control already is.
There's a trick you can use at this stage: I'm not recalling the details this late at night, but someone else will fill those in: when ASP.NET compiles a page, it first "compiles" the markup into source code, then compiles the source code. You can get ASP.NET to not delete the temporary source files. That allows you to copy into your project code that creates precisely the same HTML as the user control did.
The difference will be - it's now your code and you can refactor it as much as you like, or even include it in a custom control library.
I’m new to .net, though I’ve been writing in classic asp for years. I know it’s time to make the change, but I can’t stand how bloated the HTML becomes.
For example, a simple menu using a web.sitemap and adds over 100 lines of JavaScript and HTML. A simple form with server-side validation adds in masses of ugly JavaScript. And a basic table of data using GridView adds in a ViewState that makes my eyes water.
Call me a purest, though I don’t like sending data to the browser unless it’s needed. And I don’t need a form-riddled menu when a simple unordered list of links will suffice.
So, set in my ways, am I destined to forgo the benefits of the Framework entirely by insisting on writing my own, cleaner code for everything? Or am I missing the point?
As a brief aside I’m a big fan of Campaign Monitor, a newsletter distribution company. They’ve written an elegant and comprehensive user-interface in .net without a single ViewState or bizarre .net-mangeled ID reference. Even the Sign Up form on their website (/signup.aspx) is as clean as a whistle. What’s their secret?
I hope I not the only one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Try ASP.NET MVC or one of the other MVC web frameworks for .NET
If your GridView doesn't need it, then turn ViewState off for it.
Also, please edit your question to say what version of .NET you're using. Some of this gets better, and some does not. You might also want to try VS2010 beta 1, and complain about anything it doesn't fix.
Another idea would be to go on treating ASP.NET like it's classic ASP. Do it exactly the way you're used to, but do it with the idea in mind that there's about 10 years of development work that's gone into solving some of the problems of classic ASP. Once you actually hit one of those problems, find out if ASP.NET has solved it, and how.
For instance, I have a hard time believing you enjoy writing FOR loops to generate table rows. If you get tired of that, learn to use a Repeater control, or a DataList control, or even the old DataGrid control. If you turn ViewState off on those, I think you may find the generated HTML to be acceptable, and you'll find it a lot easier to generate tables and other structures that repeat based on repeating data.
You can opt-out of much of that bloat by not using all the out-of-the-box controls that come with it but I prefer the MVC route that activa suggested
Here is my list:
Keep the use of asp controls to minimum
Turn off Viewstate when it's not need
If you don't want the JavaScript associated with Client Side Validation (with ASP.NET Validation) set the EnableClientScript to False
Use asp:literal instead of asp:Label
Yeah it seems to be that everyone is bashing webforms at the minute for the reasons you have outlined above. HTML heavy Controls, ViewState, no control over ClientIDs all seem to cause an issue with people.
However let is be said that you can use asp.net (webforms) and produce some decent applications.
Control of html is yours through httpModules and httpHandlers and some of the issues mentioned above are fixed in asp.net 4.0
I just listened to a great podcast comparing MVC and webforms. Its in the area you are asking about. Also check out this blogpost by a dotNetNuke regarding the good asp.net code and why people should take a breath before converting everything to mvc.
Having said that I've tried Asp.net MVC and it is awesome. I'd probably look at dotNetNukes code to as its a mature asp.net product.
Also, when you do want to use these newfangled server controls, check out the css friendly control adapters. They clean up much of the bloat.
For client IDs the key thing to remember is to let the framework handle them. If you need to get an element on the client side, remember to emit the control's ClientID property into your script.
I've been using a template system and am very happy with it. Basically write an http handler for .html files and put tokens in the html files that regex could find in one sweep and inject any stuff. (google template c# for more info).
I tried some of the supposedly cool new features of ASP.NET for a little while. I also didn't like most of them. I felt constrained to work within the limitations of the common paradigms Microsoft had dreamed, even though I new how easy it would be to produce the HTML and JavaScript myself to do specifically what I wanted to do without having to learn how to jump through the hoops of so many new Microsoft-specific idiosyncrasies.
Anyway, I stopped using the parts of ASP.NET I didn't like on new code I've been writing lately. When I first started using ASP.NET, nothing in the MSDN documentation jumped out at me about how to avoid such complications, so I posted a couple "Hello, World" at http://www.agalltyr.com/rawaspdotnet.html to help spread the heretical word. I couldn't care less if it's the latest cool technology or the recommended technique. It's a reliable and reasonably efficient tool I can use to do my work.
Oh, and I'm not in the mood to learn ASP.NET MVC either. That's just more idiosyncrasies. Give me a language (C#) and a framework (.NET), and I'll design my own abstraction, thank you.
I'm an ASP.NET web part novice. I've built a few simple ones using only a class that derived from WebPart and overriding the CreateChildControls method, but nothing really very substantial. My question is whether it's possible to have a web part that also takes advantage of a separate html/asp.net markup file that will help provide some structure to the web part's output. In the past I just created server controls and added them to the controls collection, but this seems like a silly way to try to create a non-trivial layout. Can I do this? Do I have to use an ascx user control or can I bypass that step? There are a lot of hello world tutorials on web parts out there, but none seem to go past the CreateChildControls override. Thanks!
Yes, there is. Go here to learn about templated web parts, and go here to see all of the info he has on WebParts. I used this technique back in 2004/2005 and it worked very well.
The links in the above answer are no longer working, but here is an alternative one:
http://www.a2zdotnet.com/View.aspx?Id=95
In VS 2010 we also have visual web parts, that I think do pretty much the same trick but it's wrapped in a project item. I've only seen this in the context of SharePoint so not sure how it works for ASP.NET projects. Here is an example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff597539.aspx
I wonder what the best practice for this scenario is:
I have a Sharepoint Site (MOSS2007) with an ASPX Page on it. However, I cannot use any inline source and stuff like Event handlers do not work, because Sharepoint does not allow Server Side Script on ASPX Pages per default.
Two solutions:
Change the PageParserPath in web.config as per this site
<PageParserPaths>
<PageParserPath VirtualPath="/pages/test.aspx"
CompilationMode="Always" AllowServerSideScript="true" />
</PageParserPaths>
Create all the controls and Wire them up to Events in the .CS File, thus completely eliminating some of the benefits of ASP.net
I wonder, what the best practice would be? Number one looks like it's the correct choice, but changing the web.config is something I want to use sparingly whenever possible.
So in that case I would wrap it up in a feature and deploy it via a solution. This way I think you will avoid the issue you are seeing. This is especially useful if you plan to use this functionality within other sites too.
You can also embed web parts directly in the page, much like you do a WebControl, thereby avoiding any gallery clutter.
What does the ASPX page do? What functionality does it add? How are you adding the page into the site? By the looks of it this is just a "Web Part Page" in a document library.
I would have to do a little research to be 100%, but my understanding is that inline code is ok, providing it's in a page that remains ghosted, and thereby trusted. Can you add your functionality into the site via a feature?
I would avoide option 1, seems like bad advice to me. Allowing server side code in your page is a security risk as it then becomes possible for someone to inject malicious code. Sure you can secure the page, but we are talking remote execution with likely some pretty serious permissions.
Thanks so far. I've successfully tried Andrew Connel's solution:
http://www.andrewconnell.com/blog/articles/UsingCodeBehindFilesInSharePointSites.aspx
Wrapping it into a solution is part of that, but the main problem was how to get the code into that, and it's more leaning towards Option 2 without having to create the controls in code.
What I was missing:
In the .cs File, it is required to manually add the "protected Button Trigger;" stuff, because there is no automatically generated .designer.cs file when using a class library.
Well, it's a page that hosts user controls. It's a custom .aspx Page that will be created on the site, specially because I do not want to create WebParts.
It's essentially an application running within Sharepoint, utilizing Lists and other functions, but all the functionality is only useful within the application, so flooding the web part gallery with countless web parts that only work in one place is something i'd like to avoid.