We have a series of ASP.Net applications that have been written over the course of 8 years. Mostly in the first 3-4 years. They have been running quite well with little maintenance, but new functionality is being requested and we are running into IDE and platform issues. The apps were written in .Net 1.x and 2.x and run in separate spaces but are presented as a single suite of applications which use a common navigation toolbar (implemented as a user control). Every time we want to add something to a menu in the nav we have to modify it in all the apps which is a pain. Also, the various versions of Crystal reports and that we used tables to organize the visual elements and we end up with a mess, especially with all the multi-platform .Net versions running. We need to streamline the suite of apps and make it easier to add on new apps without a hassle. We also need to bring all these apps under one .Net platform and IDE.
In addition, there is a WordPress blog styled to match the style of the application suite "integrated" into the UI and a link to a MediaWiki Wiki application as well.
My current thinking is to use an open source content management system (CMS) like Joomla (PHP based unfortunately, but it works well) as the user interface framework for style templating and menu management. Joomla's article management would allow us to migrate the Wiki content into articles which could be published without interfering with the .Net apps. Then essentially use an IFrame within an "article" to "host" the .Net application, then...
Upgrade the .Net apps to VS2010, strip out all the common header/footer controls and migrate the styles to use the style sheets used in the CMS.
As I write this, I certainly realize this is a lot of work and there are optimization issues which this may cause as well as using IFrames seems a bit like cheating and I've read about issues with IFrames.
I know that we could use .Net application styling, but it seems like a lot more work (not sure really). Also, the use of a CMS to handle the blog and wiki also seems appealing, unless there is a .Net CMS out there that can handle all of these requirements.
Given this information, I am looking to know if I am totally going in the wrong direction? We tried to use open source and integrate it over time, but not this has become hard to maintain. Am I not aware of some technology out there that will meet our requirements? Did we do this right and should we just focus on getting the .Net streamlined? I understand that no matter what we do, it's going to be a lot of work. The communities considerable experience would be helpful. Thanks!!
PS - A complete rewrite is not an option.
Hmm, we're in the midst of a project to do something that sounds familiar. We're using www.sitecore.net CMS but you could use the Open Source alternative Umbraco again both of these will have a learning curve, but they're .Net apps and aren't targetted specifically at blogs. SiteCore ultimately can use normal .Net user controls if you want, though it's slightly against their model, but it works.
One thing I'll warn you of is SiteCore Must be the root of your website, it has to control the root of the domain (it has a urlrewriting module that needs to be at the root) and you can tell it to exclude certain folders where your applications might live. You can obviously put your navigation in a folder under the root of the site. Also note SiteCore's a .Net 3.5 application running under the 2.0 runtime.
Are your sub-applications.. Actual seperate applications in virtual dirs or something I'm guessing?
Depending on the nature of the .Net apps, you may find DotNetNuke to be a useful choice.
It's a CMS where you write widgets ('modules') in .Net, then add them to the pages of the CMS. In your case, you'd wrap your existing functionality in such widgets. I've done exactly this several times, and now that I'm used to it it's no big deal.
The downside is you have to learn to swim in the DNN environment, which (like any CMS) has a bit of a learning curve.
I'd have to know a lot more about your existing apps to be sure this is a plausible option. If it looks appealing, you should probably contact someone who's dealt with a situation like yours (such as myself) and go into detail. It's very easy to find yourself in a dead end with these CMS frameworks.
Edit: Like a product mentioned in a different answer, DNN has to control the top level of its subdomain -- all requests begin by going through Default.aspx and are then dispatched in various ways.
Related
I was recently asked to create a web page using a static website generator, like Jekyll. My question is this:
How does this differ from just creating a website using HTML or writing the page as an ASP.net project in Visual Studio?
How does it work on the server?
What are some concerns I should have?
I'm a .net guy, so I would like to be able to create this in visual studio, if possible.
Here are some advantages and disadvantages that came to my mind:
Advantages
can be deployed on every server, as it's just static html
has partials, that can be reused, in contrast to normal html, where you have to code/copy paste every thing
you can still code in an IDE
a non developer can edit code (sometimes at least)
Disadvantages
the template language is limited and sometimes a bit awkward/needs to get used to
you have something new in your environment, which has additional costs (more than one developer needs to know how to build the site, ...)
If you know your current toolkit well and you do not have a problem hosting another ASP.net project on your server, I do not see the need for you to introduce another tool in your tool chain.
If you want to do something, where users can generate content - like github does on the github pages - this is something you might consider.
As for Jekyll, we tried it on one project and being devs, who like to code, we ran into it's limitations quite early. You can work around this, but if you know a programming language you will be faster. It was still fascinating, how far we were able to go with just using Jekyll
With ASP.NET pages exist throughout the life cycle of the page, and able to work with request and session context. See this article asp.net page life cycle
HTML pages are static and you can not access any variable that is on the server.
I recommend you follow the step by step this link to go to just understand how to develop ASP.NET http://www.asp.net/get-started
I hope that helped
Vicente
I've started to wondering whether ASP.NET Webforms/MVC even have a place in the web developers toolbox anymore... It seems that CMS systems like Umbraco have replaced the web developers job. Yes I know that those CMS systems are built with ASP.NET Webforms/MVC - however is there even any reason for learning those things if all you gonna do is to use a CMS system anyway? - Also I cant find any situation where a CMS system can be replaced by your own web application.
My question is therefore: Is there any reason for learning Webforms/MVC when using a CMS?
EDIT:
My question might be more like: When should I use a CMS, and when should I go and build my own web app?
The problem with CMS solutions, and I mean all CMS solutions (not just Umbraco, or other .NET solutions, but in any language) is that you will always pay a price for using them. You may gain more from the time-savings afforded by using the CMS, but there are trade-offs to consider:
You will sacrifice a great deal of flexibility
You could pay a significant performance penalty. Many CMSs load a large amount of modules and code to service every request, and much of this is not relevant to a particular page function. (though some CMSs are more monstrously heavy than others!)
The future of your project is tied to yet another vendor, and their own choices
Very often, you rule out the possibility of using other databases that might have better fit your customer's needs (Umbraco doesn't support PostgreSQL, Kentico only supports SQL Server)
Once you start using a CMS you will be tied into satisfying the architectural decisions and API of the CMS framework, and you could eventually be backed into a corner.
This can be particularly problematic if your 'site' is more of a web application than a pure content delivery site. In such cases it can make more sense to choose to build using the full flexibility of the web application framework, rather than risk getting backed into an architectural corner.
On the other hand, if you are building a web site that has potentially hundreds of pages, with a lot of user-contributed content and is much less of a web application, then often a CMS is the way to go, and makes a lot of sense. But remember, you now have two frameworks and two APIs to learn and manage (your platform's framework and the CMS framework).
Writing a CMS is like invading Afghanistan.
Everybody gets a turn but nobody wins.
I don't think that Stack Overflow could have been built with a CMS. Does that answer your question? =)
Update
To answer your updated question.
If you want a regular corporation web containing news, articles, forum etc: Go ahead and use a CMS.
If you need to build a more custom web site like stackoverflow, a web interface for a system or anything like that: Built it using MVC etc.
I personally use a CMS for our corparate website and a MVC framework to build user and administration interfaces for our products.
Not every problem needs a CMS. In the same way not every problem needs a bespoke MVC/webforms website. It depends on what your requirements are. You pick the technology to solve the problem.
Build vs buy is the hardest decision to make. As a developer build always looks best. You can do better than that pile of carp they want to buy. Nevermind that you're reinventing the wheel, axel, cart, etc. To users/management buy always looks best. They don't have to think to hard about what they want and can have it now, not 3 months later after you write it. They forget it'll cost the same again to customise & make it impossible to upgrade.
I'll stop ranting now.
Umbraco is a pretty bare minimum CMS. To customize it (e.g. Version 7+) you'll need to know Heavy MVC, JSON, XML, Sql, etc.
In fact a Site built on Umbraco 7+ is entirely based on MVC views you set yourself and assign to SurfaceControllers (which are MVC controllers) and all you are really getting is the ability for users to edit things about your pages and have Umbraco manage it for you in a DB.
In short you still need experienced web developers to build a site on Umbraco, they just save a lot of time by not having to build the entire backend from scratch.
You use Umbraco to organize Document Types that define what Templates (MVC Views) are used for rendering different types of documetns (e.g. Web Pages) and then you built the template from the ground up with 100% control over the HTML, Css, and Javascript that get's output.
Imo Umbraco is more of a Framework like Django than a complete CMS.
Sure you can build a site in Umbraco and not customize anything, but it would be a pretty cheesey site.
The whole point to Umbraco is to give skilled .Net Developers a good platform for building a site on top of it, but they still have to build it.
Now sharepoint would be more of a complete CMS out of the box that you can do a lot with, but let's see a few problems with SharePoint...
Resource Heavy, eats 50+ Gig's to install
Eats 16 GB of ram just to boot it up (Sharepoint 2013)
Requires Sql Server 2008 R2 or equivalent (enterprise license, $$ chaching)
Requires Windows Server ($$chaching)
It's a monster basically, if all you need is a user editable blod platform... man what a waste of money. Foundation is free, but doesn't include things like the Blog Site Template, so you buy a server enterprise license ($$ big cachinge, 40,000$+ in some scenarios...)
Agreed. A CMS like Umbraco provides a (very) good out-of-the-box solution for the most basic applications. Any sort of specialized purpose is going to require additional programming knowledge. Anymore, though, and your major, if not primary need is going to be a good understanding of the business need. I think we're getting away from building the Legos themselves and on to building the neat toys with the Legos. Cheers!
A CMS (or similar application framework) will provide you with a lot of functionality out of the box, and many of them also have a good library of plug-ins. But you'll still need to write WebForms/MVC code if you want to add any custom features.
I am trying to think about a web application development framework for our product development. I want to build an ASP.NET application which has many sub-modules in it. My requirements are like:
The application will be a suite of different modules like CRM, Bugtracker, Inventory management, Finance management etc.
Each Module should have their own DLLs.
One project should be for the external container of the application (like the framework) and this project should bring all other modules (of type web application) in the solution to the external container. (Some thing like we have Frames in HTML). So we will publish the external container web application only at the end of the day and all other web application projects will be accessed via that.
I would like to have separate DLL for each module so I don't need to fear about the application breaking when I am deploying my single DLL which controls the entire suite.
I am not sure whether my thoughts are in the right direction. The end result I am looking for is a well-maintained, organized, and modular web application suite.
It is ASP.NET web forms, not MVC. I will use VS2010 for development.
What are the best approaches to do this?
Edit:
The term external container means it acts like a master page which has links to various modules and the various modules are not always in the same project. They can be separate project under the same solution. And I am under the impression that, by the end of the day, I will publish that project only and it will bring the various modules to it.
I actually think the best approach would be one that does not over-architect. I'm concerned that it seems you are producing an overall architecture without sufficient reason.
Are these all new modules? Then just start writing the first one. Use best practices that apply to single modules.
Then write the second one. You'll find you want to use things you already wrote in the first module. Great. That's what refactoring is for. Refactor these things out into one or more "library" projects, re-run all your unit tests, then proceed with the second module.
Repeat until all modules are done.
At the end of this process, if you needed the kind of architecture you've outlined, then you'll have it. If you needed less, then you'll have less, and you will not have spent time creating an architecture which is not tied to real-world requirements.
I'm not going to say this is a "best approach" but I would recommend looking over Dot Net Nuke (DNN) to get some ideas. This started as the old "I Buy Spy" starter web project that Microsoft distributed to show ASP.NET projects, and it took off from there.
edit:
1.The application will be a suite of different modules like CRM, Bugtracker, Inventory management, Finance management etc.
You can do this with DNN. They're also called "modules" in DNN and Drupal.
2.Each Module should have their own DLL's.
Yes, this is a good idea. And you'll see this sort of thing in several content management systems like DNN and Drupal. This way not all implementations of the same website need to have all modules installed.
We have a significant website that is used to host a "service as a solution" application that we charge for (if you aren't an actuary or accountant you won't have heard of it). The lead developer for the past couple years used an earlier version of DotNetNuke as a model for how to refactor the parts of the application that he was allowed to change.
Like others have suggested DNN would probably work for what you're trying to do. If you want to completely roll your own naturally I would turn to some sort of combination of a container "Framework" and a bunch of user controls (.ascx). The container could be as simple as a master page with a menu. Depending on how flexible you want your design you can prefabricate many different pages, each hosting a different control (separate dll as you wish). If you want it to be a little more dynamic you can have one content page that will dynamically load at runtime the desired user control into it. Again this is just a general approach, probably a 30000 feet view into how DNN is implemented anyway.
Name the main project after your company/product and keep it short and simple. You will probably need one or two library projects to support it - these will contain everyday, common logic for such things as error reporting, Web utility methods, etc.
Next, pick one of your intended sub-projects (I don't like the term module in this particular context) and add that to your solution. Whether you are reusing an existing project, or preferably starting from scratch, you will eventually have any common logic in this project moved out to your libraries.
Rinse and repeat. Perhaps take a look at something similar like the Sueetie project which includes several sub-projects like CMS, Blog, Calendar, Forum, etc.
The following article is marked as "outdated" on MSDN but I still think you should take a look at it:
Structuring Solutions and Projects
Also, something similar from the Patterns and Practices Group:
Structuring Projects and Solutions in Team Foundation Source Control
A friend of mine really likes using Joomla as a base for his websites. He also likes the power that Asp.Net has and can code in VB.Net.
He wants to use Joomla as the "Master Page" and Asp.Net/VB.Net/SQL Server to handle the main business logic of the application. He is planning on using the Joomla Wrapper Module (an IFrame, joomla modules) to integrate the ASP.Net into the Joomla website.
Joomla will be able to handle the security (users,roles,registration), menu (based on roles), static content (e.g. About Us page) and it will pass an Encrypted Username & Password to the Asp.Net web page (example here).
The goal of the website is to allow users to register & subscribe to a (free or paid) service where they will be able to customize content and download it as a file.
What disadvantages are there when doing this? Are there work arounds?
Some issues that I can think of are:
Links clicked in an IFrame won't change the browser's url which means that you can't bookmark pages and they aren't in the browsers history.
If Asp.Net has to know the users/roles (which is very likely) then it would have to access the Joomla database or keep its own user table which will have to be in sync with Joomla's users.
EDIT:
I would never build a new website this way, but I was looking for concrete points to convince my friend that using Joomla and Asp.Net together isn't a good idea.
I believe your friend's idea is fine. Both platforms have strong points. Joomla is a mature open source CMS platform that has an enormous amount of community contributed components and it is easy to use which makes it appealing. But I can also see instances where you may want to include ASP.Net functionality in certain scenarios. I have had clients who use Joomla but wanted an app I have written in .Net and it did not make sense to spend the time or money to rewrite it in PHP and MySql. The two can be integrated securely. I wish your friend luck in his endeavors.
I don't see what advantage you get from using Joomla when the app is ASP.net (nor the advantage of coding an ASP.net app when the framework uses PHP/MySQL).
I'm not convinced the security is tight because you can open iframes and bypass the Joomla security. Then you talk about passing username/password to the iframe - but now you need to validate this again through the ASP.net app.
I once coded an app in raw PHP and included it in a Joomla site using iframes. I realized fairly quickly that there was basically no security because the raw PHP had no knowledge of Joomla (although the app was not visible to site visitors and only known about by admin). I quickly recoded it into a built-in component.
To me, this sounds like you're reinventing the wheel on both sides of the app. If you want to use Joomla, either learn how to make components (it's pretty simple) and do it in PHP, or hire someone to do it for you ;).
If PHP is not your strong point, then use a full ASP.net site, perhaps with a CMS as GmonC suggested. Even creating your own basic CMS with some pre-built components (e.g. Telerik) would probably be quicker than integrating PHP and ASP.
Seriously, IMHO, if you're not going to integrate some legacy system or isn't doing this kind of "integration" development as an "experiment" to learn something - in a summarized way, if you just want to have your work done, I think the description you provided inserts a lot of complexity and overhead that aren't needed in the first place.
This added complexity of two completely different ecosystems is a disadvantage to what should be just simpler. I really believe you should try to use Joomla or other CMS written in .net like dotnetnuke (or build your own) instead of this configuration.
If you add more information about what are the goals and objectives of this project, my opinion may change. Until them, I keep my opinion of simplicity.
The time and effort you are going to go through to use Joomla is going to far outweight what it would take to just get some other CMS that was designed for .NET.
Stop over-engineering yourself into a midlife crisis.
Also, Joomla? Seriously? Joomla?
me too don't get any advantages for joomla, it's big system and it just as good as wordpress for regular projects, just wordpress is much simplier. joomla has no good documentation to learn and hard to extend.
One of the projects I was in charge of as a JSP/Struts developer at my last employer was a themes tag library (present on every WebSphere server as a shared library) that let any Java web dev in the company pull in any of the standard themes like intranet, public, etc. with minimal effort. The themes included header, footer, navigation, and links to css & javascript, etc. They could even customize things a bit when we gave them the option, like choosing a selected tab.
This setup was ideal because we could make centralized change to any standard UI elements and they were automatically pulled in by all sites using themes without any effort by the site developer.
With the new job I started in December, I've switched to using ASP.NET. I'd like to propose something similar in spirit to the themes app here, since we're running a bunch of different sites that should have a unified look and feel.
What's the best way to accomplish this? I'd rather not have to recompile anything to update the theme to make this work.
Edit:
Although I was hoping for a better answer, the .NET gods apparently don't approve of what I was trying to accomplish. Here are the three options that were found:
Compile a Master Page into a DLL and put it into the GAC:
This works in simple cases, but as a hack it's too brittle. I couldn't get it to work correctly with our site.
Create a virtual directory to the Master Page in each web app: This actually does work, although it doesn't make for a very comfortable development environment. However, one of the things we are trying to move away from is having to create virtual directories inside each web application. No dice.
Create a bunch of custom controls, compile them into a DLL, and put it into the GAC: This is the answer I selected. It's the least centralized option and requires more work for the developer of each site, but it seems to be the only Microsoft-blessed way.
In conclusion, I'm pretty frustrated with .NET over this. In the grand scheme of things Master pages are just code, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't be easily centralized for use in multiple web applications. This seems to be a major loss compared to JSP/Java.
You can put some UI into the form of custom controls or server controls (if not in MVC) and then place them in the GAC thereby distributing them. All references to the controls in that assembly will be pulled from the latest version in the gac. You can also do things via the Machine.config which is controlled at the server level rather than the app level.