I will apprecaite your help in this topic.
I need to build a site with friendly urls using url rewriting in order to improve SEO positioning.
I've been searching torought web and finally pointing to this two main options :
asp .NET with isapi extension
asp .NET mvc
however, I got no experience on both items so I need you to help me to kwow further about this two technologies and to take the right decision for my needs.
Thanks
There are much bigger concerns than just URL setup when making this choice. You're talking about two completely different architectures for building your web pages.
You should make the decision on how you want to build your application, what skillsets you have available in your developers, etc. Both approaches will be able to handle the URLs that you need to generate for SEO considerations.
For public facing websites, I would personally choose ASP.Net MVC, because I find the development cycle shorter, more productive, more flexible and more maintainable than an ASP.Net webforms application.
Assuming you have a host/server that can run ASP.NET MVC (i.e. one that has the .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 installed on it), you can use the Routing Engine (System.Web.Routing) from ASP.NET MVC in a web forms environment, Phil Haack has a good updated walkthough at "Using Routing With WebForms".
There's also "How to: Use Routing with Web Forms" on MSDN.
Unlike an ISAPI filter, this enables you to use the routing engine to generate your internal links as well as responding to well formed links from outside.
I agree with womp. But there is one advantage i see in Asp.Net webforms that Asp.Net Mvc doesn't have: Rich Client Iteraction controls. Everything in Mvc in View layer is simple and functionality need to be build from scratch.
alexserver - at the same time of course, the fit between mvc and jquery is an overwhelming reason to abandon the rich clinet controls. that way, you can literally get your designer and/or a jquery UI expert to work on the view portions in isolation whilst you craft the model and controllers.
Related
Ive been confused about ASP.NET MVC.
As some said, MVC is better than ASP.NET. As some said, they are completely the same thing.
And my colleges debate that MVC is just an extension of asp.net, where asp.net is already in the form of MVC.
In fact I am starting web developing from scratch. If someone might help to clear the fog front of me, it would help a lot.
All ASP.NET web frameworks are build on top of Microsoft ASP.NET Framework. The unique feature of Web API is that it can be used with both MVC and WebForms applications to provide truly restful HTTP services.
Regarding the choice of suitable Asp.NET framework: you may get more information from official source - www.asp.net.
General rule of thumb is the architectural design how you want to build your application.
ASP.NET MVC promotes a cleaner separation which makes the developer think more in depth about design and code separation than traditional web forms.
There are endless debates about what is better but true benefits of ASP.NET MVC as
testability
more control over the rendered HTML
separation of concerns. However with MVC there is much more to learn for the developer.
ASP.NET WebForms - will always be around because some see it as a rapid application development tool. Just drag and drop and let ASP.NET handle the posting, state etc
ASP.NET Web API - is a framework that makes it easy to build HTTP services that reach a broad range of clients, including browsers and mobile devices. ASP.NET Web API is an ideal platform for building RESTful applications on the .NET Framework.
All in all, each of them has certain business solutions to be considered as required.
References to look for comparison:
ASP.NET MVC vs WebForms: speed and architecture comparison
ASP.NET Roadmap: One ASP.NET – Web Forms, MVC, Web API, and more
ASP.NET is the name of the overall web framework. There are a few different technologies that are built on ASP.NET. Two popular examples of these technologies are WebForms and MVC.
WebForms promotes a programming model that looks a lot more like Windows Forms. It attempts to abstract away the stateless nature of the web, and encourages you to use server-side controls instead of HTML. Because WebForms was the primary way to write web applications on ASP.NET for a long time before MVC came out, you'll often see people talk about "ASP.NET" as the same thing as WebForms. This is part of the reason for your confusion. ASP.NET WebForms is very different from ASP.NET MVC, but they are both built on ASP.NET.
ASP.NET MVC gets away from server-side controls. It eliminates the abstractions, allowing you to have closer control over the actual HTML that gets generated. For developers of modern applications, this is very useful because it makes it much easier to use AJAX and rich client-side javascript.
(Humble Opinion incoming)
ASP.NET (in terms of using Webforms) is programming the web for a WinForms developer. You "bind" events, you have "controls" and everything (sessionstate) is stored in a huge hidden field within the page so it knows where it left off from the previous call. You rely heavily on this information being present which is why everything you do needs to reside in that master form wrapping the entire page.
On the other hand, MVC is bringing C# .NET programming back to the web the way the web was intended. No bloat, no hidden fields, no heavy bindings. It's brings everything back to the classic "i have this form and now I need to process it". Arguably, the real magic is the routing methods and the "automatic binding" of submitted fields to an object. (if fields x, y & z are submitted and your action is looking for FooBar with the properties x, y & z it's automatically converted for you.
ASP.NET is common to both WEB-API and ASP.NET MVC. I assume you wonder about MVC or WEB-API.
MVC is a controller / model based with Views. Although the controllers can be used for AJAX json purposes. MVC is a good way to build a serious Browser based Application. The WEB-API allows you to build simple http server features, not necessarily Browser related. Good for REST style programming. Very flexible and a good alternative to WCF services. The are good tutorials on Both on the official ASP.NET site. START here http://www.asp.net/get-started
choose depends on your project n you. I suggest you to choose MVC because its productivity is very high we r using it since 1 year and found better than webforms.
for more knowledge please visit http://www.asp.net/mvc
The choice depends completely on you, I have been developing MVC application since 2010, its going to be over 2 years now have worked with almost all the versions of MVC both with Razor and aspx view. I have also worked on ASP.Net webform based applications.
With MVC you will not get built in controls, you will have to develop every control you want to use, you will have to rely mostly on html controls, while with web forms you will get advantage of using built in controls, Even getting help from other developers in your surroundings may be easy for webforms as you can easily get a webform developer.
But on the other hand with MVC the maintability is very high. As for as productivity is concerned, its very high once your are accustomed to it, initially it will be low as you will be in learning phase. Don't forget to use Entity Framework.
You may also consider developing your App using WebAPI, if it suits your scenario.
I'm on the point of starting a medium scale web application and I'm considering developing using ASP.NET Razor syntax Web Pages framework (not MVC). But as I've seen many people consider "Web Pages" to be tailored towards beginners.
I'm developing professional large scale web applications in ASP.NET Web Forms for several years now, but I've always inclined towards clean html/javascript code more than server side controls therefore I find Razor syntax very much appealing. I'm using Visual Studio and not considering web pages for helpers functions or other beginner eye candy features.
Having this in mind what are your opinions on scalability, speed, long term development on this approach?
In terms of performance WebPages is asp.net and gets compliled so performance should be similar to WebForms and MVC.
I'd say that any site that could be built using ClassicASP, PHP or WebForms (without using server controls) can be built just as well using WebPages.
I prefer WebPages over WebForms and MVC for my sites. You get full control over the HTML, don't need to worry about concepts like the page lifecycle and postsbacks unlike WebForms. On the other side you get a lightweight, simple framework where you don't need to use VS.net, solutions files, project files and 3+ files to serve up a single page and you don't need to compile the entire solution before deploying unlike MVC.
But what you use I think depends mostly on your detailed requirements and skillset.
But as I've seen many people consider "Web Pages" to be tailored towards beginners.
Go for the ASP.NET MVC 3 and the Razor view engine then. It provides you with the WebPages syntax coupled with the full power of the MVC pattern built on top of an established platform such as ASP.NET in terms of scalability and long term development. You can't dream for better as far as the Microsoft stack is concerned.
I am starting a new project in VB /.Net Framework 2.0 for a company corporate website with data driven forms. So should I go further with Asp.net MVC or Asp.Net web forms and WHY ??? We are not ready for Ajax now but later.
And also we have DevExpress components.
Actually I see ASP.NET MVC as next generation in that it is an evolution - trying to be a better programming environment, as software development for web apps asks for something more testable.
It is a huge beast. Decide based on features whether you need it. MVC has less documentation and is a lot harder to master thanks to a less RAD approach, but it seems that once you are in, it will be quite a better experience. If you have a web application (like stackoverflow.com) then it may be a good approach.
DevExpress components - have fun... throwing them away. Like most ASP.NET components they will not work or only work very partially. Totally different approach.e
ASP.Net MVC is not "next generation" ASP.Net. It's an alternative approach to design that can be more beneficial depending on the kind of project you're working with. Without more information about the particular type of project you're working on no one can give you any informed recommendations.
I know what MVC is and I work in webforms but I don't know how MVC will be that much different. I guess the code behind model will be different. So will it be like webforms minus the code behind and instead having it in a controller?
I see there are other related posts but I don't they address this.
For starters, MVC does not use the <asp:control> controls, in preference for good old standard <input>'s and the like. Thus, you don't attach "events" to a control that get executed in a code-behind like you would in ASP. It relies on the standard http POST to do that.
It does not use the viewstate object.
It allows for more intelligent url mapping, though now that the Routing namespace has been spun off, I wonder if it can be used for WebForms?
It is much easier to automate testing of web parts.
It allows for much easier separation of UI logic from the "backend" components.
The image says it all.
Update: Adding the original link for completeness.
http://forums.asp.net/t/1528396.aspx?MVC+vs+Web+Forms
The video tutorials here help describe the differences.
There is so much that can be said about your question.
MVC allows for clean separation of concerns, testability, and test driven development (TDD). It supports clean RESTful URLs and is very extensible... meaning you could swap out of the viewing engine, the routing mechanism, and many other things that you might not like out of the box.
For additional information I would suggest reading Dino Esposito's blog post entitled An Architectural View of the ASP.NET MVC Framework. Inside this post he compares many differences between the classic code behind approach with MVC.
Asp.Net Web Forms:
Asp.Net Web Form follows a traditional event driven development
model.
Asp.Net Web Form has server controls.
Asp.Net MVC model:
Asp.Net MVC is a lightweight and follow MVC (Model, View, and
Controller) pattern based development model.Asp.Net MVC does not
support view state.
See more..
I'm thinking about trying out MVC later today for a new app we're starting up, but I'm curious if it's an all or nothing thing or if I can still party like it's 2006 with viewstate and other crutches at the same time...
Yes you can have your webforms pages and MVC views mixed in a single web application project. This could be useful if you have an application that is already built and you want to migrate your app from webforms to mvc.
You need to make sure that none of your webforms pages go in the 'Views' directory in a standard ASP.NET MVC application though. Pages (or views) in the 'Views' directory can't be requested directly through the url.
If you are starting an application from scratch, there would be very little benefit to mixing the two.
Yes. MVC is just a different implementation of the IHttpHandler interface so both classic ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC pages can coexist in the same app.
As you've probably noticed with the above answers, yes this is very possible to do.
I've actually had to do this on my current project. I was able to get approval to add MVC to our application, but only in the administration section (to limit the risk of affecting current members coming to our site).
The biggest problem I had was converting my Web Site to a Web Application, but once that was done, things were pretty straight forward adding MVC side-by-side our classic code-behind web pages.
The trick for me was to make my MVC pages look as similar as possible to my code-behind pages so the transition looked as seamless as possible.
I am currently working on a new project. While I would like to go down the MVC route all the way, some of the project requirements don't allow me.
One of those requirements is to have a grouping grid from the client-side. Personally have chosen the Telerik Rad-Grid. While they may be in the process of supporting MVC they are not there as yet.
So this means that I have to have a hybrid solution. for the time being until RadGrid fully supports MVC.
While we are in this transition period I think that there will be may more hybrid projects out there until the support of the Third Party Controls catches up.
Regards
Nathan
You'll need to make sure your MVC routes don't conflict with your Web Forms pages so that requests for a .aspx page don't get routed to a controller action as a parameter etc.
See this blog post by Phil Haack for details on how to avoid this.
Yes, it is very much possible for MVC pages to coexist with asp.net web forms. I implemented that in my existing asp.net application for adding new features. We need to make sure of referring the MVC DLLs, registering routing tables for URL routing and configuring the assemblies and namespaces in Web.config file.
If you're mixing MVC with other methodologies you're not really getting the benefit out of it. The point of MVC is to allow you to decrease coupling and increase cohesion, and if only half of your code is doing that, then the other half is inevitably going to restrain your development cycle.
So, I guess while it's possible, I don't think it's worth it. Go all the way or don't go at all.