We are working on an ASP.NET CMS project using jQuery as the basis for our client side scripting.
The jquery-1.2.6.js file is the only script file that is always included. Other script files are currently included depending on what components the CMS editor is using on a page or page template.
A lot of the script combiners produce a static script. If we took that approach we would have to add all possible script files in just in case they were needed. We are not currently using any of the ASP.NET Ajax extensions so have not looked at what that may give us.
Anyone got any suggestions?
I have read Combining and Caching multiple JavaScript files in ASP.net but I don't think that covers off the conditional nature of our situation
So great I can use ScriptManagerProxies and some methods on the base master Page. However there is one other thing. Stopping all the ASP.NEt Ajax guff being sent down to the client. I am going to take a look at bleroy's hack until ASP.NEt 4.0 releases
TIA
Pat Long
Working in Sitecore on a site that had multiple scripts for different pages, we created a list of script items in Sitecore, then added a Multlilist field to the Items. We had a placeholder in the head of the master page, and dynamically added the scripts as they appeared in the multilist field. We did the same thing with CSS as well. It worked out nicely. (Specifically, it was on http://www.utulsa.edu)
Edit: I misunderstood what you originally meant. It seems like you may need combine and produce all the possible static scripts you need, then dynamically include the one you are looking for, if you're looking for only one script include per page.
Otherwise, you could just depend on caching to keep your script requests down, and do what you are currently doing
Edit 2: A third thought is you could write your own combiner that will combine scripts on demand, and include the generated (or pre-generated) script
I don't know if this will help you or not, but Scott Hanselman posted on twitter that you could download issues of MSDN Magazine for free. I followed the link and looked through a couple of issues and this month (Feb, 2010), and one of the first articles discusses predictive fetching with jQuery and ASP.NET Ajax.
This looks like it could be along the lines of what you're looking for. As far as stopping the AJAX requests, I haven't read the entire article, but I'd assume it mentions something in there (as predictive fetch would have to account for this).
Related
I have an Episerver site with a JobDetailsPageController with a Index method that takes a jobId parameter and creates a view with some details about that job. The urls looks something like this: https://hostname/<root-depending-on-site-tree>/jobs/?jobid=44.
What I would like is having urls on the form .../jobs/manager-position-telco-44, essentiallly creating a slug of the job title and appending the id. I have done this in the past using standard ASP.NET MVC Attribute Routing on a non-Episerver site, but EpiServer has a routing of its own that I don't know too well and can't figure out.
Also, adding non-query strings after the slash consistently sends me (no surprise) to a 404 page, so I would need to somehow customise this behaviour. I need to use EpiServers standard routing to end up at the right "parent", but ignore the latter part (the pretty bit).
Is it possible to create such urls on a normal page in page tree in EpiServer? I do understand it is possible to create static routes, but this node can be moved around like any other page so I cannot avoid EpiServer.
Please see this blog post. What you're looking for is partial routing.
#johan is right, partial routing is one way of doing this. Just wanted to add other possible solutions that might or might not match your needs.
Import data as content
Instead of serving content dynamically, you could consider importing your job ads from whatever source you have directly in content tree as separate pages below particular root page. That would give you a lot benefits - pages would be cached, it would support multiple languages, editors would see content directly in EPiServer CMS, data could be adjusted manually, etc.
This would be a good solution if your data does not change often and you need to provide a way for editor to create a new job ad manually as well.
Implement you own content provider
Another way to serve your dynamic data to EPiServer is to write your own custom content provider. You can find documentation here: http://world.episerver.com/documentation/Items/Developers-Guide/Episerver-CMS/7/Content-Providers/Content-Providers/
This solution requires more coding and is more complex, but it has some benefits as well. If one wanted, it would be possible to not just serve content from external data source, but also update that data by changing values directly in EPiServer UI.
At the moment we have a solution which is Web forms ASP.Net 4.0. We do a number of things such as using web methods and services either calling them using the standard web forms way or sometimes to reduce the footprint directly calling them with jQuery ajax posts and gets.
We are looking to improve the way we work but we have heavy constricts regarding how the solution is at the moment and not being able to completely rewrite it.
Updating the page using Ajaxs for data, forms and for example pulling "the next 20" items and displaying them on the page it what I would like to heavily stream line.
Using template's due as PURE and jQuery Templates is fantastic way to produce fast calls back and forth between the servers but results in having two copies of the html. (the template for the jQuery and the code in the actual first render of the page)
We have thought about possible producing a empty template and then always populating it via json data we post down to the server but I feel this isn't how things should be done...
can anyone reckoned the best way we can do this without having two copies of our 'template' (e.g. a row of a table)
You mean you have a template in asp and the same template in javascript, but you'd rather just have 1 or the other?
I think that is really subjective. It is always different based on use case. That being said I'd do it by modifying my views and templates. My views (non-js) would simply have containers for that dynamic content. In other words I'd never load the dynamic portions of content into the views initially. Rather, on page load I would simply load up the template and the json that fills it in.
If you think about it that's 2 more requests, but it makes your life easier. The user also is able to see something on the page sooner.
This is one of those questions that really depends on what you are doing. There are trade-offs to be analyzed with every solution.
i have a current asp website that i need to keep in sync but it has stuff like this:
<!--#include file="inc_search_form.asp" -->
i can't change this file at all as it exists in another asp website so i can't break that compatibility..
is there anyway i can just shove this same file into my asp website and have it work the same?
There is an assumption here that the other asp website may want to change the content of this asp file and you would want such changes reflected in your new website. If that isn't the case you would simply create ASP.NET version of this content in your new webstie.
There isn't really enough info in your question for a good answer to you specific scenario.
To the general scenario the answer is a flat no.
However there may be some mitigation depending on what the include actually does. For example it may be possible simply read the ASP file in ASP.NET perhaps do some text based tweaking and include the final HTML content in your ASP.NET pages output. This approach though is very fragile if the include is subject to change (if not see first paragraph in this answer).
Another mitigation might be if the include file can generate the desired content when requested directly, in this case you may get away with making HttpWebRequest looping back to this ASP page whilst processing the ASP.NET page. Ugly and again fragile but possible.
To what extent does the include file depend on the includer to have created a context for it? For example does the include file use variables that it expects the includer to have created? In which case the answer is no.
Does the include expect to be placed in a specific part of an overal HTML page, does it contain inline Javascript and does it attempt to interact with other parts of the containing page? Loop back HttpWebRequest might work in this case.
The most likely answer is no. Even if the answer is yes what ever the solution it will be fragile. Personally I just wouldn't even attempt it despite any perceived benefits. In the long run maintaining a ASP.NET version of this content in parallel with the existing ASP version in the other site is much more tenable.
One thing that's really been making life difficult in getting up to speed on the codebase on an ASP classic project is that the include file situation is kind of a mess. I sometimes find the function I was looking for being included in an include file that is totally unrelated. Does anyone have any advice on how to refactor this such that one can more easily tell where a function is if they need to find it?
EDIT: One thing I forgot to ask: does vbscript have any kind of mechanism for preventing a file from being included twice? Sorta like #ifndef's from C?
There are a few basic things you can do when taking over a classic ASP application, but you will probably end up regretting doing them.
Eliminate duplicate include files. Every classic ASP app I've ever seen has had 5 "login.asp" pages and 7 "datepicker.js" files and so forth. Hunt down and remove all the duplicates, and then change references in the rest of the app as necessary. Be careful to do a diff check on each file as you remove it - often the duplicated files have slight differences because the original author copied it and then changed just the copy. This is a great thing for Evolution, but not so much for code.
Create a rational folder structure and move all the files into it. This one is obvious, but it's the one you will most regret doing. Whether the links in the application are relative or absolute, you'll have to change most of them.
Combine all of your include files into one big file. You can then re-order all the functions logically and break them up into separate, sensibly-named files. You'll then have to go through the app page by page and figure out what the include statements on each page need to be (or stick with the one file, and just include it on every page - I can't remember whether or not that's a good idea in ASP). I can't comprehend the pain level involved here, and that's assuming that the existing include files don't make heavy use of same-named globals.
I wouldn't do any of this. To paraphrase Steve Yegge (I think), "there's nothing wrong with a classic ASP application that can't be fixed with a total rewrite". I'm very serious about this - I don't think there's a bigger waste of a programmer's time in this world than maintaining an ASP app, and the problem just gets worse as ASP gets more and more out of date.
#MusiGenisis bullet point list is good advice to follow but I'd disagree with -
"I wouldn't do any of this. To paraphrase Steve Yegge (I think), "there's nothing wrong with a classic ASP application that can't be fixed with a total rewrite". I'm very serious about this - I don't think there's a bigger waste of a programmer's time in this world than maintaining an ASP app, and the problem just gets worse as ASP gets more and more out of date."
All very well, but if it's a sizable legacy app doing complete re-writes is often not possible due to a lack of developer time/resource.
We have a fairly large classic ASP app which has grown arms and legs over the years, it's not pretty but it does serve the business needs. We have no time to spend the next six months doing a complete re-write, it would be nice, but just not possible. Our approach is -
Where there's new functionality required, it's implemented in ASP.NET. This happens 95% of the time. The 5% edge cases usually being that there are a large number of points where the new app code touches the old app requiring us to do a lot of classic ASP re-work potentially making the app more fragile.
Where there's a change in functionality we assess whether we can refactor to ASP.NET with minimal impact. If this isn't possible then we'll implement the change in classic ASP and tidy up existing code as we go along e.g. simplifying include file nesting, replacing javascript with more cross browser friendly code, that kinda thing.
In answer to your question about #ifndef's, there isn't an equivalent I'm afraid.
Use one file to global headings and includes (lets name it t-head.asp). This file is included in all asp files.
Use one file to make the site visual global header (logos, menus, etc) and include it right behind . Let call it t-begin.asp
Use one file to make the site visual global footer (copyright, google analytics, etc.) and closing all divs or tables opened in t-begin.asp. Lets call this file t-end.asp
Use one folder to put the business logic files, called BUS. The files in this folder can not have includes. Every function inside the file must be preceded by the name of the logic unit (IE: all function in products.asp must begin with product_*)
Use one folder to put some reused UI code called UI. The files in this folder can not have includes.
Example:
<%# Language=VBScript %>
<% Option Explicit %>
<% Response.Buffer = true%>
<html>
<head>
<!--#include file="../general/t-head.asp"-->
<!--#include file="../bus/product.asp"-->
<title>Products page</title>
</head>
<body>
<!--#include file="../general/t-begin.asp"-->
<% 'all your code %>
<!--#include file="../general/t-end.asp"-->
</body>
</html>
Wow. It constantly surprises me how many people have a hate for ASP. In decent hands it's a perfectly capable language for designing web applications.
However, I will concede that the way include files are managed in ASP can be a bit of a brainache -- because (depending on how you use them) they have to be loaded and parsed even if you're not using half the functions contained within.
I tend to have one include file (initialise.asp or some such) that itself includes links to several functions libraries (lib_http.asp, lib_mssql.asp or similar) and all library functions are self-contained so there is no worry about crossing variables. Any global vars are declared and set in the master file. This means I can use a function anywhere, any time and not worry about where it was defined, it's just there for use. And IDEs such as Visual Studio and Primalscript have the ability to "jump to definition" when you find a call to a function that you don't recognise.
Then, any script-specific includes are included in the script after the call to this master include file.
I concede that this is a memory-hungry approach as all the functions in all the libraries are compiled for every script call, so the method needs refining for each site you develop -- decide what to call via the master include and what is more page-specific. It would be nice to be able to only load what you need -- but that's the DLL approach and is not available for the majority of real-world developments, and also you'd have to weigh up the processor cost of compiling small scripts vs loading components.
A concise directory structure is requisite and easily developed, but it can be a chore to wade through all the code in an existing site and change any links or mappath calls. Also, be aware that some IIS administrators disallow the '..\' method of traversing directories via VBScript, so then all file references have to be absolute paths.
i think you should consider moving your code from ASP VBScript to Visual Basic COM DLLs. that'll ease on you having too much includes.
I don't know of a way to prevent a double inclusion, other than getting an error message that is. Are you seeing includes placed throughout the page, which is making them difficult to spot?
Just as an aside, are you working with a copy of the code and the database on a development server? From my experience, the first thing to do is separate yourself from the live site ASAP. While a hassle initially, it'll give you the freedom to make changes without messing up the live site. It's easy to make that one tiny change in an include and BAM! the whole site goes down.
I've worked through a few projects like you've described and used the following strategies:
Complete rewrite - perfect when there's time/money, but usually I get the call when something has gone wrong and results are needed ASAP.
Smaller projects - I open up everything in the IDE and just start searching all the project files for the functions/sub, in order to build a knowledge of the include logic. Pretty much each time, everything is spread out everywhere, so I start rebuilding the includes organized by business logic. I've also run across inline code (raw code, not subs or functions) thrown into an include, so I'll usually just pull the code back into the page for refactoring later.
Larger projects - I'll use some code I have laying around to parse the includes for lines with sub/function headers and dump those to a text file to build up a list of what routines are where and refer to that. This comes in handy when you've got a ton of includes on each page and can't get your head around the codebase.
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.