The problem I'm having with writing a web application architecture is that I want separate components that work together. By this I simply mean, for example, a navigation bar and the actual page content (as well as a header, which is static) in ASP.NET.
Now, here's where it gets interesting:
There are no two pages the same
The navigation pages on every page have security on them on a user-by-user basis
The navigation has links to other locations
The problem I'm mainly having is that you've usually got to have a full web page in Visual Studio, and if you have portions i.e. excluding your <html> tags then Visual Studio will end up underlining everything as incorrect.
The way is this application is currently being dealt with is using frames (yes, frames) to keep everything separate, but working together. I want to move away from this, although the web system is very large, and very important in that it must be available 24/7.
Any ideas?
Have you looked at Master Pages in ASP.NET 2.0? These can be used in conjunction with User Controls, and the Site Map Navigation.
Master Pages Quickstart Tutorial
MSDN Overview
Master Pages: Tips, Tricks, and Traps
Example Template Set
There's a really good book you should check out that might shed some light on your problem. It's "ASP.NET 2.0 Website Programming: Problem - Design - Solution", part of the Wrox series.
Is it not possible to implement UserControls for this? for example a navigation user control that can handle the security for itself etc etc.
Hope this helps a little.
Related
We're building a Kentico 8.2 site using ASPX+portal model. Looking at the rendered HTML on my live site I can see a lot of unnecessary Javascript that Kentico has dumped into my page. What's more this is occurring at the top of my page at the top of the form element.
For example, it's rendering the ASP.NET __doPostBack JS function even though I'm not using any controls that require it. Other scripts are being added as WebResource.axd and ScriptResource.axd includes.
At a glance it would seem these scripts constitute the Microsoft AJAX framework used with UpdatePanel etc. My assumption is that they are there to add portal manager functionality when using the page in the Kentico UI. Presumably they are also used with certain built-in web parts.
However, I am only using custom web parts on my live site so all these scripts are doing nothing and are just slowing down my page and causing poor performance testing results.
I've tried hiding the <ajaxToolkit:ToolkitScriptManager /> and <cms:CMSPortalManager /> controls on my master page when rendering the live site, but this causes templates that have a <cms:CMSWebPartZone /> to break.
Does anyone know how to ensure this bloat is removed when not required? Or at the very least cause these scripts to be rendered at the end of the page so they don't interfere with performance too much?
Unfortunately, building sites within Kentico using ASPX and ASPX+Portal Pages will automatically generate additional markup such as __doPostBack, WebResource.axd and ScriptResource.axd.
I wouldn't recommend removing any of the default code in your Masterpage. This will cause things to break (as you've experienced).
However, having this markup in place shouldn't cause a massive issue in page performance. Understandably, this isn't ideal.
What I do to lessen the hit is the following:
Disable the ViewState wherever possible. For example, either at Page Template or Webpart/User control level.
Move the ViewState to the bottom of the page (in Kentico Settings), so the page is less "top heavy".
Ensure you are caching everything you can. For example, site furniture used by your webparts and templates (images/js etc) at IIS level and at Kentico level using their API.
Reading this article from the Kentico documentation provides some more information in greater depth: Optimizing website performance
If you really want "full control" over the HTML rendered, Kentico does allow you to create templates using MVC. But this won't give you the flexibility to modify Page Templates by moving around web parts within the CMS Administration. I presume you have chosen the Portal Page approach for this very reason.
I hope this helps.
In addition to #sbhomra's great answer I have a few questions, suggestions and comments.
How many seconds or milliseconds are you talking about with performance? If you think you'll gain a few milliseconds back, it's not worth your effort to try to rebuild all the functionality. If you're talking a second or two, there about 15 different things you can change within settings and your code to gain it all back. Think about how much code you're going to write, maintain and upgrade just to gain a second or less back?
The WebResource and SciptResource load resources that are compiled into libraries within the website. So if someone created an external library and that library was loading an image that was compiled into it, you'd get that WebResource.axd reference on your site. You'd have to physically remove those libraries from the Kentico instance.
Although I don't recommend it strictly because you lose so much functionality and have so much extra unnecessary code, MVC will give you the control you're looking for.
While working on a quite big web application project, I decided that it could gain a little bit of fresh air by marking some of the pages and controls with the CompilationMode="Never" #Page attribute. So far so good, working as expected and then it happened. A corner case scenario that I am going to explain behaved unexpectedly to put it nicely. This scenario is nested master pages.
A quick teaser before continuing. How deep nesting do you think you could go if you mark the top master page as CompilationMode="Always", and all others beneath it with CompilationMode="Never"? No, its not infinite, or some internal number that ASP.NET has. Its 2. Why? - I have no idea, and I was hoping some of you smart guys could enlighten me?
I have attached a project with 5 nested master pages to demonstrate what I am talking about: Nested Master Pages Web Application Test Project.
Another corner case that is working unexpectedly as well - if you have 5 nested master pages, change the second to have CompilationMode="Always" and all others to have CompilationMode="Never". You will notice that the 3rd master pages is being applied twice!
Please help me understand if something I am doing is incorrect, or confirm the issue.
ASP.NET Runtime Version: 2.0, .NET: 3.5
EDIT:
The project attached has all master pages set to CompilationMode="Never". The ASPX page displays as desired. Change the first master (Site.master) to have CompilationMode="Always" to see what I am talking about.
UPDATE (1/21/2010): Good news: after more investigation, it turns out that this issue was fixed in VS2010. The fix was made post Beta 2, so it will be part of the next public build. I don't have an exact date, but it should not be too far out.
Yes, I seem to recall this coming up before, and indeed some scenarios involving nester master pages and CompilationMode="Never" are broken.
Looking at an old mail thread, I think it only happens for certain combinations. It looks like it’s broken for (where NoCompile means compilationMode=never):
NoCompile Page / Compile Master / NoCompile Master
NoCompile Page / NoCompile Master / Compiled Master
At the time, we did not fix this because the fix was non trivial and the scenario is not common.
Note that when it comes to NoCompile pages, most of the benefit is using it for end node aspx pages, and not master pages. Generally, NoCompile pages run a bit slower than compiled pages. Their benefit is that they don't have a first time compile hit, and they use less memory. Also, they can be fully unloaded under memory pressure. That's why they make good sense when you have a super large number of end point pages (Sharepoint uses them). But on master pages (where most apps only have a small number shared by many pages), that benefit would be minimal. And of course you can't have code in NoCompile pages, which is the main reason that few people use them.
So the quick summary is: you're right, it's a bug! :) And the recommended workaround is to avoid CompilationMode=never for master pages.
Past, now irrelevant back story: I was trying to make some changes to BlueBand and get 'up and running pretty quickly' but after looking at it further this is no longer an option due to tables that a previous developer introduced into the layout. I'll have to live with this and make what tweaks I can.
So, looking towards future greenfields projects...
Are there any recommendations for CSS frameworks that work nicely with SharePoint publishing sites? (Examples are BluePrint, YUI.) They should not interfere with standard out-of-the-box controls such as the Site Actions menu, rich text editor, and publishing toolbar.
Real world experiences welcomed, please!
What would you like to use a CSS framework for? As far as I can tell you could use one for making a cross-browser reset but everything else just depends on your layout. If you're planning to throw out the standard SharePoint layout it means that you need to start from scratch. The good news is that it's not much different than creating a layout for any other website. There are some things you need (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa660698.aspx) while working with SharePoint but as for CSS it's all up to you.
Heather Solomon has a great blog/guide on wiring up SharePoint CSS classes - take a look:
http://www.heathersolomon.com/content/sp07cssreference.htm
Cheers,
Adam
You will run into a lot of trouble trying to hack the blue band theme into a table less layout.
You may get some mileage from the free Accesibility Kit for Sharepoint.
It comes with layout pages, CSS and even control adapters for those who care about the HTML of thier site.
Still, getting rid of the tables produced by SharePoint is not really compatible with "up and running pretty quickly"
You should start with the minimal masterpage. That will be the masterpage that's connected to the publishing layouts. You can then add in all the html/css you desire to your masterpage and layouts to make them look like anything you want.
If the users who are browsing those same publishing pages also need access to your list forms (new,edit,display) you will have to edit those files and attach them to your masterpage (either through SP Designer or a Feature to do it automatically). Or, customize the application masterpage to be nearly the same as your publishing masterpage and deploy them both as a feature with an HTTP Handler that changes the masterpage for the application.master at runtime.
Also an FYI, there are many issues once you start customizing list form pages for a site accessible to anon users, so do your research first on that one if needed.
We have used 960.gs with some success. Just include it in your master page, and wrap the main content area with a - or use container_12/container_24. Then in your individual page layouts, you can leverage all the columns/push/pull/alpha/omega goodies that make 960 so great. This works in 2007 and 2010, just takes a bit more work in 2007.
You can use any framework you desire when working with Sharepoint, however, the primary concern is how much control you have over web parts. OOB web parts use table based layout. If you have full control over how the web parts use the markup they product then you are one step closer to using a framework with little headache.
To alleviate some of the table based layout used in web parts you can look at accessibility toolkits to convert the web parts appropriately.
Scenario:
I have a pretty standard master page for all my pages. It includes the usual login forms and other dynamic lists to be extracted on each page. Webdesigners can already modify the central content place holder of each page. But still, the design and layout for the master page is still in my project and any modification to the design must be made in Visual Studio and the project re-compiled and re-deployed.
What is the best way to provide near-full access to designing the master page through a CMS? Some of the problems I can identify is the inclusion of any dynamic lists or specific controls such as a login form.
Thanks.
Unless you want to host your content within a portal I don't know of a perfect answer to this.
If the bits they design just amount to look and feel for the page then this can be controlled by css and you could allow them to create themes using different css files.
This is indeed an interesting question, and there is no perfect solution. I worked for an ecommerce shop with this issue, and frankly, I just asked the designers in many cases to provide me there html and css, then I would grab the html pieces and css and add them to my project. Yes this was tedious....
Then we we built a cms where the designers could copy and paste their html into html editors, and we would store those pieces of html in a database. My web app would grab those from the database at run time. This solve some issues, but not all, since it did not give them complete control of the design of the web page.
The bottom line is you need to standard as to how the designer will submit their work to you. If you have that, and you can count on the html and css, then you can star to think of possibly building a CMS around that. In this days of RAD, I have found it easier to just work with the html and css delivered to me and simply copy and paste the pieces into my master page and other pages as needed.
While this is not a CMS answer, you do have the ability to allow designers to open the master pages in Expression Web. I will not say it is the greatest tool in the world, but I have had designers work up the master page designs in Expression with good results.
There is a pain point, however. If the entire project is opened, the designer will see the code behind files as separate items, not like the treeview view seen in Visual Studio.
I imagine you could have the master page checked out for use with Expression through a CMS, but there is no built in way to do this, nor do I know of a third party tool to do this. Hopefully Expression Web 3 will make things easier.
If you have a CMS, you may be better to give it full control over page content. If there are things the CMS cannot do, you could look to write extensions or plugin modules for the CMS that your designers can then drop onto the page in the CMS's page editor.
If your CMS doesn't support plugin modules, you may be trying to force both the CMS and master pages to do things they were not intended to do.
If the above doesn't work in your situation, here's another thought: place inline frames on your master page that host pages that are edited in the CMS.
Hope that helps.
Would it be possible for you to put placeholders in the Master Page in place of the areas that designers should be allowed to edit? Since Master Pages are only editable in Visual Studio, it may be your only feasible option at this point in time. One problem with this approach is that the content put in the placeholders is unlikely to be valid, since you would probably have tags left open in one placeholder and closed in another.
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<asp:PlaceHolder ID="headerContent" runat="server"></asp:PlaceHolder>
</head>
<body>
<asp:PlaceHolder ID="beforeContent" runat="server"></asp:PlaceHolder>
<asp:PlaceHolder ID="centralContent" runat="server"></asp:PlaceHolder>
<asp:PlaceHolder ID="afterContent" runat="server"></asp:PlaceHolder>
</body>
</html>
I know it's ugly, but it might give you the control you need (as long as you don't mind the XHTML validator warning you all the time). What you put in the placeholders could be your user controls or literal content or whatever, but you'd have to load it dynamically.
Thoughts?
EDIT: This won't work. The PlaceHolder is going to render <div> tags that would mess things up. Maybe you could extend PlaceHolder and override how it renders its HTML.
Interesting question,
been dabbling in that area myself a while ago.
How knowledgeable are these web designers when not in the realm of not-inside-Photoshop-or-flash?
If using a DIY-CMS, perhaps you can template the most susceptible objects, e. g. making a generic (as in whatever you feel like, not whatever they feel like ;-)) list and a way of entering design, if applicable.
As long as you have a thorough framework set up, that deals with the attributes available to the designers through the CMS, there shouldn't be any need for recompiling... but of course, I can easily see a developer (read : me) stumbling
into the gap of nitty-pitty-perfection....
I'm afraid the easiest, and only manageable, path is to standardize how the designers express their needs&wants to you...it just won't code itself...
Could you provide some examples?
Well, with a Web Application Project pages are not compiled until accessed (link is 2005 but it still applies). This means that the actual .aspx (and .ascx etc) page is deployed in its original state. A designer can update the format of the page on the server and the updates will be compiled the next time someone requests that content.
It would be relatively trivial to allow designers to download the current pages and upload replacements through your website's UI. However, it isn't very secure (and probably should never be done). It would be better to allow designers access to the virtual directory over the web so they can connect to it using a tool such as Expression Web. This way the designer can open the current website, edit pages, and push the results directly into production (scary tho that thought may be).
As I'm getting downvoted for having a correct answer, let me point out something.
Website projects compile codebehind and pages on demand. If you need to update code regularly, its an okay solution.
Web application projects can be configured to be updatable. All codebehind and classes are compiled into an assembly, and all aspx, ascx, etc pages are deployed and compiled on demand. This means that a designer can connect to the website, update the layout and static content, and see the changes on the next request.
This is my preferred method of deployment. I have a few web application projects out there in the wild, with updatable aspx files deployed alongside my dll. The idea being that users of the website can alter the UI without having to submit updates to me so I can recompile it for them.
a .master is just a text file. They can edit it however they like. There's certainly nothing they'd do to it that would require you to recompile the code just to view it. That's the big win with Master Pages in the first place: designers and other non-programmers can edit them manually without breaking anything.
Give them access to the file under source control and let them go nuts.
I've never created a web page and I'm just learning ASP.NET now and all the examples I see are mostly with filling out forms etc. So I'm wondering if the lively, colorful, and snazzy web sites can be done with ASP.NET. I have also been playing with a trial of Expression Web. It seems to be for the "fancier" side of things. Are the two sides of the web mutually exclusive or can an ASP.NET page be just as colorful? Keep in mind I'm new to doing anything on the web.
Thanks for your help?
Yes, you can make an ASP.NET page look just like a static web page. The look and feel of a web page is done completely on the client side, using HTML, Javascript and CSS. ASP.NET lets you use all of these things, but it provides the ability to generate output to the page on the server side before sending it to the client's browser. Once it gets to the browser, the HTML, Javascript and CSS will apply just as if the client was loading a static page.
Absolutely yes!
You may be confused with the tutorials which are focused on teaching backside technology and poor on page design. Isn't microsoft.com colourful enough?
Asp .Net just outputs html.
ASP.NET is simply a web application framework. What is sent to the browser is *usually** HTML, so anything that you can do with a static HTML page, you can do with ASP.NET.
In my personal experience, I have had better luck with producing "lively" pages using ASP.NET MVC, since I have better control over the markup, and I don't have to contend with ViewState or munged control IDs. Subjectively, the pages feel less sluggish than those of ASP.NET, and I can use JQuery to improve the user experience.
Yes you can, just do not use Web Controls. I have written several Blogs on this so far this year. http://professionalaspnet.com/archive/tags/Thin+ASP/default.aspx
Ultimately, html is sent to the browser irrespective of the server side technology, so question is a bit awkward.
But for aesthetics side, asp.net provides features called master pages, themes, skins. By providing these it goes beyond css.
ASP.NET can be used to produce very lively and colourful pages, but you need to understand how to create the pizzaz. Mostly that's going to be media and javascript. For that, you need to understand HTML, and then what the ASP.NET Server controls render as in HTML so that you can control and manipulate it in your javascript more easily.
The reason that ASP.NET tutorials feature data and forms is that the need to manage data (and dynamic content deriving from it) is what makes people use ASP.NET rather than static html.