|
.net
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maintaining ASP.NET Sitesmaintaining an ASP.NET site without the source code of the dlls? This was not a problem with classic ASP, all the code was almost always just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to the site's folder. But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside developers doing work on their site. At the end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the source code??? How do you even understand what the code does exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. The new developer that gets hired gets the source code that is left by the
outsourced developers. Those outsourced developers would be required to provide the source code to the DLLs, and the non-technical people would be in posession of this code when the old developers left the project. Thus, the new develop would receive the source code and go from there. I don't understand why you wouldn't have the source code?? And by the way, you can code in ASP.NET exactly like you did in ASP. You don't have to use codebehind. You can have 100% of the code in the .aspx files, and no DLLs whatsoever. Maybe you should do your research before declaring ASP superior... Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > the site's folder. > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > developers doing work on their site. At the > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world
it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often not available to new developers for one reason or another. Show quoteHide quote "Marina" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05...news:ueoyC$GGGHA.208@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > The new developer that gets hired gets the source code that is left by the > outsourced developers. Those outsourced developers would be required to > provide the source code to the DLLs, and the non-technical people would be > in posession of this code when the old developers left the project. Thus, > the new develop would receive the source code and go from there. > > I don't understand why you wouldn't have the source code?? > > And by the way, you can code in ASP.NET exactly like you did in ASP. You > don't have to use codebehind. You can have 100% of the code in the .aspx > files, and no DLLs whatsoever. > > Maybe you should do your research before declaring ASP superior... > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote > > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > > the site's folder. > > > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > > developers doing work on their site. At the > > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > > > > > If this is ever the case, then someone in management didn't do their job
right if they allowed only the result of compiling the source code to remain, and not the source code itself. Basically, the only option is to start from scratch and rewrite the application, since you obviously can't hack the DLL. And whoever allowed this to happen just learned a valuable lesson. This, however has nothing to do with shortcomings of ASP.NET. Like I said, ASP.NET can be written exactly as ASP was, with 100% of the code in plain text in the .aspx - so this is always an option. Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:FvSxf.38$MG1.2@trnddc05... > > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often > not available to new developers for one reason or another. > > > > "Marina" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:ueoyC$GGGHA.208@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> The new developer that gets hired gets the source code that is left by >> the >> outsourced developers. Those outsourced developers would be required to >> provide the source code to the DLLs, and the non-technical people would >> be >> in posession of this code when the old developers left the project. Thus, >> the new develop would receive the source code and go from there. >> >> I don't understand why you wouldn't have the source code?? >> >> And by the way, you can code in ASP.NET exactly like you did in ASP. You >> don't have to use codebehind. You can have 100% of the code in the .aspx >> files, and no DLLs whatsoever. >> >> Maybe you should do your research before declaring ASP superior... >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to >> > the site's folder. >> > >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside >> > developers doing work on their site. At the >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! >> > >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. >> > >> > >> >> > > Raymond wrote:
> That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world That's a management/policy issue like others said before. We've NEVER > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often > not available to new developers for one reason or another. had such a problem before, and we're not expecting it to happen either. if the previous developers (I'm not talking about ASP.Net in specific here) leave you no source code and documentation there's a very big problem. Either they've deleted it (and it is company property) *and* that there is seemingly no standard backup procedures in place (even for critical things like that, and no auditing either), it most likely also means there is no source code control/management program in place (and perhaps issues with team development), etc. I don't see why code would all of a sudden go "missing" (can you imagine, say, a new developer coming to work on Windows (or any other app) and all they have is some DLLs and no code left anymore? No? well, it's the exact same thing). If you want you can use it somewhat like classic ASP with all the code in the aspx page itself. The ability for the code to be compiled is NOT a bad thing. It rather sounds like your company has some serious IT issues to look into. Code disappearing like that is practically impossible if you use source control/backups and all. You can't exactly blame these problems on the technology for not having made it impossible by crippling itself... Well I can blame it on the technology, because
compilation to dlls is how most ASP.NET sites are done, and that's not the case with classic ASP. Like I said, these companies are managed by very non-technical people. They are small and have no in-house technical staff whatsoever. They are entirely at the mercy of the developers they contract. Once or if you come across this, as I have, you'll appreciate how things work in the real world. Show quoteHide quote "john smith" <j***@smith.com> wrote in message news:ONouMjiGGHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Raymond wrote: > > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world > > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often > > not available to new developers for one reason or another. > > That's a management/policy issue like others said before. We've NEVER > had such a problem before, and we're not expecting it to happen either. > if the previous developers (I'm not talking about ASP.Net in specific > here) leave you no source code and documentation there's a very big > problem. Either they've deleted it (and it is company property) *and* > that there is seemingly no standard backup procedures in place (even for > critical things like that, and no auditing either), it most likely also > means there is no source code control/management program in place (and > perhaps issues with team development), etc. I don't see why code would > all of a sudden go "missing" (can you imagine, say, a new developer > coming to work on Windows (or any other app) and all they have is some > DLLs and no code left anymore? No? well, it's the exact same thing). If > you want you can use it somewhat like classic ASP with all the code in > the aspx page itself. The ability for the code to be compiled is NOT a > bad thing. It rather sounds like your company has some serious IT issues > to look into. Code disappearing like that is practically impossible if > you use source control/backups and all. You can't exactly blame these > problems on the technology for not having made it impossible by > crippling itself... Raymond wrote:
> Well I can blame it on the technology, because No you can't blame it on the technology just because it doesn't prevent > compilation to dlls is how most ASP.NET sites > are done, and that's not the case with classic ASP. > > Like I said, these companies are managed by > very non-technical people. They are small > and have no in-house technical staff whatsoever. > They are entirely at the mercy of the developers > they contract. Once or if you come across this, > as I have, you'll appreciate how things work > in the real world. people from making bad decisions, not implementing best practices, having non-technical (i.e. people that aren't qualified, under-qualified or even incompetent) making decisions and policies, etc. If they decide to contract, they only had to ask for the source code (which they should get in almost all cases anyways - except for 3rd party libs used and such). That's poor requirements (and perhaps not contracting with the right people - any decent contractor would ask questions like this). None of that can be blamed on the technology itself. ASP.Net is vastly superior to ASP in every aspect (a truly amazing framework, great performance/maintainability, great languages, etc etc). So what you're saying is they should have made it impossible to compile apps (which was also possible in ASP as a COM DLL which you don't seem to object to) instead of making it an option like it is currently (just because some people have no clue), hence making the platform much slower overall and lacking in comparison with Java and others (making themselves a not as good/attractive solution as other development/hosting platforms i.e. a second rate platform instead of becoming the absolute best in the market)? And that would be better? Okie! Didn't know I lived in the fake world, but I suppose it's good to know! On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:26:41 GMT, "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote: I've seen the same scenario happen with VB6 solutions. The problem is> >Like I said, these companies are managed by >very non-technical people. They are small >and have no in-house technical staff whatsoever. >They are entirely at the mercy of the developers >they contract. Once or if you come across this, >as I have, you'll appreciate how things work >in the real world. > > generally "you get what you pay for". It's time to pull out the popcorn.
"Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:RSAyf.3251$MG1.2630@trnddc05...Show quoteHide quote > > Well I can blame it on the technology, because > compilation to dlls is how most ASP.NET sites > are done, and that's not the case with classic ASP. > > Like I said, these companies are managed by > very non-technical people. They are small > and have no in-house technical staff whatsoever. > They are entirely at the mercy of the developers > they contract. Once or if you come across this, > as I have, you'll appreciate how things work > in the real world. > > > "john smith" <j***@smith.com> wrote in message > news:ONouMjiGGHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Raymond wrote: >> > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world >> > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often >> > not available to new developers for one reason or another. >> >> That's a management/policy issue like others said before. We've NEVER >> had such a problem before, and we're not expecting it to happen either. >> if the previous developers (I'm not talking about ASP.Net in specific >> here) leave you no source code and documentation there's a very big >> problem. Either they've deleted it (and it is company property) *and* >> that there is seemingly no standard backup procedures in place (even for >> critical things like that, and no auditing either), it most likely also >> means there is no source code control/management program in place (and >> perhaps issues with team development), etc. I don't see why code would >> all of a sudden go "missing" (can you imagine, say, a new developer >> coming to work on Windows (or any other app) and all they have is some >> DLLs and no code left anymore? No? well, it's the exact same thing). If >> you want you can use it somewhat like classic ASP with all the code in >> the aspx page itself. The ability for the code to be compiled is NOT a >> bad thing. It rather sounds like your company has some serious IT issues >> to look into. Code disappearing like that is practically impossible if >> you use source control/backups and all. You can't exactly blame these >> problems on the technology for not having made it impossible by >> crippling itself... > > Also, go to the MSDN online library.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp The whole things is running classic ASP, by the people who invented, released, and promoted ASP.NET 4 years ago! What's funny is that I remember they switched to using ASPX there a couple of years ago, and now they themselves have gone back to using classic ASP there. <LOL> Show quoteHide quote "john smith" <j***@smith.com> wrote in message news:ONouMjiGGHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Raymond wrote: > > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world > > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often > > not available to new developers for one reason or another. > > That's a management/policy issue like others said before. We've NEVER > had such a problem before, and we're not expecting it to happen either. > if the previous developers (I'm not talking about ASP.Net in specific > here) leave you no source code and documentation there's a very big > problem. Either they've deleted it (and it is company property) *and* > that there is seemingly no standard backup procedures in place (even for > critical things like that, and no auditing either), it most likely also > means there is no source code control/management program in place (and > perhaps issues with team development), etc. I don't see why code would > all of a sudden go "missing" (can you imagine, say, a new developer > coming to work on Windows (or any other app) and all they have is some > DLLs and no code left anymore? No? well, it's the exact same thing). If > you want you can use it somewhat like classic ASP with all the code in > the aspx page itself. The ability for the code to be compiled is NOT a > bad thing. It rather sounds like your company has some serious IT issues > to look into. Code disappearing like that is practically impossible if > you use source control/backups and all. You can't exactly blame these > problems on the technology for not having made it impossible by > crippling itself... On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:56:40 GMT, "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote: ASP.NET is behind the vast majority of MSDN. Read about it here:> >What's funny is that I remember they switched >to using ASPX there a couple of years ago, and now >they themselves have gone back to using classic >ASP there. <LOL> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/05/02/InsideMSDN/ I think MS just hasn't converted all their classic ASP applications to .NET.
I mean, if something is running fine and doesn't require much maintenance, why would Microsoft need to rewrite the webpage? I suppose if they're bored or just one a standard design across all their sites. As you will likely fine... Microsoft website, including MSDN, etc., belong to many subsidiaries of Microsoft. There isn't one "webmaster" guy that manages the entire web farm. There are hundreds of small subsidaries that have their own virtual directory. As long as their applications perform within specs and following their design and branding practices, then you will likely find a mix of ASP and ASPX. I think there was an interview on Channel9 with the IIS testing group regarding some of this. "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:YiByf.3255$MG1.89@trnddc05...Show quoteHide quote > Also, go to the MSDN online library. > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp > The whole things is running classic ASP, > by the people who invented, released, and > promoted ASP.NET 4 years ago! > > What's funny is that I remember they switched > to using ASPX there a couple of years ago, and now > they themselves have gone back to using classic > ASP there. <LOL> > > > "john smith" <j***@smith.com> wrote in message > news:ONouMjiGGHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Raymond wrote: >> > That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world >> > it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often >> > not available to new developers for one reason or another. >> >> That's a management/policy issue like others said before. We've NEVER >> had such a problem before, and we're not expecting it to happen either. >> if the previous developers (I'm not talking about ASP.Net in specific >> here) leave you no source code and documentation there's a very big >> problem. Either they've deleted it (and it is company property) *and* >> that there is seemingly no standard backup procedures in place (even for >> critical things like that, and no auditing either), it most likely also >> means there is no source code control/management program in place (and >> perhaps issues with team development), etc. I don't see why code would >> all of a sudden go "missing" (can you imagine, say, a new developer >> coming to work on Windows (or any other app) and all they have is some >> DLLs and no code left anymore? No? well, it's the exact same thing). If >> you want you can use it somewhat like classic ASP with all the code in >> the aspx page itself. The ability for the code to be compiled is NOT a >> bad thing. It rather sounds like your company has some serious IT issues >> to look into. Code disappearing like that is practically impossible if >> you use source control/backups and all. You can't exactly blame these >> problems on the technology for not having made it impossible by >> crippling itself... > > > You missed the point, they DID convert. It didn't
work well, then they converted back. Show quoteHide quote "dm1608" <dm1608@spam.net> wrote in message news:uKp40QMOGHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > I think MS just hasn't converted all their classic ASP applications to ..NET. > I mean, if something is running fine and doesn't require much maintenance, > why would Microsoft need to rewrite the webpage? I suppose if they're bored > or just one a standard design across all their sites. As you will likely > fine... Microsoft website, including MSDN, etc., belong to many subsidiaries > of Microsoft. There isn't one "webmaster" guy that manages the entire web > farm. There are hundreds of small subsidaries that have their own virtual > directory. > > As long as their applications perform within specs and following their > design and branding practices, then you will likely find a mix of ASP and > ASPX. > > I think there was an interview on Channel9 with the IIS testing group > regarding some of this. > not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on
your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required. -- brcue (sqlwork.com) Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > the site's folder. > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > developers doing work on their site. At the > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > Too late, you're the NEW developer. Dlls
have already been made and deployed into the site. Now you have to fix bugs in them without any source code. What do you do? "Bruce Barker" <brubar_nospamplease_@safeco.com> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05...news:Ohu8$BHGGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on > your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required. > > -- brcue (sqlwork.com) > > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote > > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > > the site's folder. > > > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > > developers doing work on their site. At the > > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > > > > > Well, at this point what you do is whip out Lutz Roeder's Reflector, along
with the Assembly Decompiler add-in, and decompile all the DLLs so that you can build a proper source solution. And then, you require the source code as a matter of basic policy, or nobody gets to work on your project. Peter -- Show quoteHide quoteCo-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal: http://www.eggheadcafe.com UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com "Raymond" wrote: > Too late, you're the NEW developer. Dlls > have already been made and deployed into > the site. Now you have to fix bugs in them > without any source code. What do you do? > > > "Bruce Barker" <brubar_nospamplease_@safeco.com> wrote in message > news:Ohu8$BHGGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on > > your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required. > > > > -- brcue (sqlwork.com) > > > > > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > > > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > > > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > > > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > > > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > > > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > > > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > > > the site's folder. > > > > > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > > > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > > > developers doing work on their site. At the > > > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > > > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > > > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > > > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > > > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > > > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > > > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > > > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > > > > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote:
> Well, at this point what you do is whip out Lutz Roeder's Reflector, along Ooo! Good call! I was about to say something similar, but you’ve even > with the Assembly Decompiler add-in, and decompile all the DLLs so that you > can build a proper source solution. > > And then, you require the source code as a matter of basic policy, or nobody > gets to work on your project. > Peter > got the progs pegged! (I wouldn’t have know which proggies to use...) ...Geshel -- *********************************************************************** * My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use * * it unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my * * first name at my last name dot org. * *********************************************************************** “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just as ignorant and ill-educated as someone who believes that the world is flat, that the Sun circles the Earth or that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all; not one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *********************************************************************** Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is] as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, since true nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary woman to keep up with an ordinary man. *********************************************************************** An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess...
Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it, you can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL is not obsfucated. The key word in google is: Reflector Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > the site's folder. > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > developers doing work on their site. At the > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > I programmed classic ASP for several years, very
intensely, including maintaining the types of code that you call complete mess. I never found any complete mess code that I couldn't understand and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of classes, and make sure I can compile them back to same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05...news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... > Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in > many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. > If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it, you > can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL is > not obsfucated. > The key word in google is: Reflector > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote > > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > > the site's folder. > > > > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > > developers doing work on their site. At the > > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > > > > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > > > > > > I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page.
NO reutilization; NO separation between presentation layers; NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the code. Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things goes out of control very easy if control is not intensive. Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06... >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very > intensely, including maintaining the types of code > that you call complete mess. I never found any > complete mess code that I couldn't understand > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. > > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it, > you >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL > is >> not obsfucated. >> The key word in google is: Reflector >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to >> > the site's folder. >> > >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside >> > developers doing work on their site. At the >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! >> > >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. >> > >> > >> >> > > Team development with ASP was no problem,
as long it was done right. Frankly, it was not too difficult doing it right, as long as you were following a few simple Source Safe practices. We must've done thousands upon thousands of updates to several hundred ASP files over 5 years, on several sites, using a team that often included up to 5-8 developers working on the same site. So I'm astonished when people say that classic ASP site maintenance was much harder than ASP.NET. It's a completely bogus issue, unless you were doing a lot of COM component updates. Yes, we used them, but sparingly. They were a hassle to update, since they required server restarts. Reutilization with ASP? Server side includes! We used them all over the place. You could also accomplish quite a bit of the code/presentation separation using SSI, Server.Transfer and Execute methods, in addition to script components, and vbscript classes. Was really never a problem for me, even if code/UI were mixed. Show quoteHide quote "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06...news:OpOgJtHGGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page. > > NO reutilization; > NO separation between presentation layers; > NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the code. > > Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible > for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. > When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? > > I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things goes > out of control very easy if control is not intensive. > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote > >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very > > intensely, including maintaining the types of code > > that you call complete mess. I never found any > > complete mess code that I couldn't understand > > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET > > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of > > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to > > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand > > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, > > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. > > > > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... > >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in > >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. > >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it, > > you > >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL > > is > >> not obsfucated. > >> The key word in google is: Reflector > >> > >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > >> > the site's folder. > >> > > >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > >> > developers doing work on their site. At the > >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > >> > > >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > you are right.
Classic ASP was simpler and therefore easier to learn, use and maintain. ASP.net is hard to learn and use. ASP.net is improving but has a ways to go. Version 1 was a start, 2.0 is better, hopefully version 3 will be better yet. The biggest problem I see is the divided development community. Different languages and different development tools hinder communication and learning. Learning tools like Web developer express are painful to use because they are so sluggish in performance and make new users cringe with annoying slow response time. There is still not a good file based sql database which can be easily deployed. Access is still the only file based option, which isn't all bad. SQL server Express is not supported by web hosts because of claimed security reasons ===================================== Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers Show quoteHide quote "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:mjUxf.155$US3.103@trnddc04... > Team development with ASP was no problem, > as long it was done right. Frankly, it was not too > difficult doing it right, as long as you were > following a few simple Source Safe practices. > > We must've done thousands upon thousands of updates to > several hundred ASP files over 5 years, on several sites, using a team > that often included up to 5-8 developers working on the same site. > So I'm astonished when people say that classic ASP site maintenance > was much harder than ASP.NET. It's a completely > bogus issue, unless you were doing a lot of COM component > updates. Yes, we used them, but sparingly. They were a hassle to > update, since they required server restarts. > > Reutilization with ASP? Server side includes! We used them > all over the place. You could also accomplish quite a bit > of the code/presentation separation using SSI, > Server.Transfer and Execute methods, in addition to script > components, and vbscript classes. Was really never a problem > for me, even if code/UI were mixed. > > > > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > news:OpOgJtHGGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page. >> >> NO reutilization; >> NO separation between presentation layers; >> NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the > code. >> >> Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible >> for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. >> When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? >> >> I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things > goes >> out of control very easy if control is not intensive. >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06... >> >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very >> > intensely, including maintaining the types of code >> > that you call complete mess. I never found any >> > complete mess code that I couldn't understand >> > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET >> > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of >> > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to >> > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand >> > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, >> > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. >> > >> > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message >> > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... >> >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided > in >> >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. >> >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change > it, >> > you >> >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the > DLL >> > is >> >> not obsfucated. >> >> The key word in google is: Reflector >> >> >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message >> > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... >> >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried >> >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the >> >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem >> >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always >> >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly >> >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to >> >> > the site's folder. >> >> > >> >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed >> >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside >> >> > developers doing work on their site. At the >> >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, >> >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new >> >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you >> >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind >> >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even >> >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the >> >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does >> >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! >> >> > >> >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > I just did a project that uses a simple file based
database using Datasets serialized to XML files. It works okay for very basic stuff, though obviously it's not a real database that can be managed without some custom programming. As for ASP.NET. I said it this three years ago on these .net newsgroups, switching to it is not nearly as compelling as ASP was in about '99. That's why it hasn't taken off as Microsoft had predicted. I remember projections back in 2002 and '03 from MS that had ASP.NET adoption way higher by 2004 than it is right now in 2006. It's not that I don't like it from a technical perspective, I definitely like the common library, C#, the ease of component creation relative to COM, Web Services, besides other aspects. Windows app creation is definitely much easier, and VS 2003 is the best dev tool I've used so far. Nevertheless, from a practical point of view, for most sites, they're better off with just classic ASP. "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message go. Version 1 was a start, 2.0 is better, hopefullynews:%23dhkF0NGGHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > you are right. > > Classic ASP was simpler and therefore easier to learn, use and maintain. > > ASP.net is hard to learn and use. ASP.net is improving but has a ways to > version 3 will be better yet. Different languages and different development tools hinder> > The biggest problem I see is the divided development community. > communication and learning. are so sluggish in performance and make new users cringe> > Learning tools like Web developer express are painful to use because they > with annoying slow response time. deployed. Access is still the only file based option, which> > There is still not a good file based sql database which can be easily > isn't all bad. SQL server Express is not supported by web hosts because of claimed security reasons> news:mjUxf.155$US3.103@trnddc04...> > ===================================== > Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers > > > > "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote > > Team development with ASP was no problem, > > as long it was done right. Frankly, it was not too > > difficult doing it right, as long as you were > > following a few simple Source Safe practices. > > > > We must've done thousands upon thousands of updates to > > several hundred ASP files over 5 years, on several sites, using a team > > that often included up to 5-8 developers working on the same site. > > So I'm astonished when people say that classic ASP site maintenance > > was much harder than ASP.NET. It's a completely > > bogus issue, unless you were doing a lot of COM component > > updates. Yes, we used them, but sparingly. They were a hassle to > > update, since they required server restarts. > > > > Reutilization with ASP? Server side includes! We used them > > all over the place. You could also accomplish quite a bit > > of the code/presentation separation using SSI, > > Server.Transfer and Execute methods, in addition to script > > components, and vbscript classes. Was really never a problem > > for me, even if code/UI were mixed. > > > > > > > > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > > news:OpOgJtHGGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > >> I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page. > >> > >> NO reutilization; > >> NO separation between presentation layers; > >> NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the > > code. > >> > >> Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible > >> for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. > >> When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? > >> > >> I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things > > goes > >> out of control very easy if control is not intensive. > >> > >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > > news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06... > >> >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very > >> > intensely, including maintaining the types of code > >> > that you call complete mess. I never found any > >> > complete mess code that I couldn't understand > >> > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET > >> > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of > >> > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to > >> > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand > >> > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, > >> > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. > >> > > >> > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > >> > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >> >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... > >> >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided > > in > >> >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. > >> >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change > > it, > >> > you > >> >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the > > DLL > >> > is > >> >> not obsfucated. > >> >> The key word in google is: Reflector > >> >> > >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > >> > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... > >> >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried > >> >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the > >> >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem > >> >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always > >> >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly > >> >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to > >> >> > the site's folder. > >> >> > > >> >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed > >> >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside > >> >> > developers doing work on their site. At the > >> >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, > >> >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new > >> >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you > >> >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind > >> >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even > >> >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the > >> >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does > >> >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! > >> >> > > >> >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > Since I've several of your responses as well as your original post, I
thought I would just respond to all here. First of all, your original premise has nothing to do with the technology. If you went into a business that had only a COM DLL and nothing else (yes, I have seen classic ASP applications just like this), then you have the same issue as you seem to claim to be unique to ASP.NET. Secondly, when you go to these businesses, are you sure that these websites are not third-party applications and they want to hack the code? As for the viability of ASP.NET, you need to look at more websites. I see more and more businesses, including Fortune 500 companies, using ASP.NET in their website development. .NET has taken off and it has apparently left you behind. Classic ASP is scripted and will generally be slower than ASP.NET. The ability to split code from HTML is probably the best general feature that ASP.NET offers. Technologically, ASP.NET is superior, especially since classic ASP will not be updated any more. Sometimes, we fear what we cannot understand..... -- Christopher A. Reed "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:vJzyf.7394$6L1.874@trnddc02...Show quoteHide quote >I just did a project that uses a simple file based > database using Datasets serialized to XML files. It > works okay for very basic stuff, though obviously > it's not a real database that can be managed without > some custom programming. > > As for ASP.NET. I said it this three years ago > on these .net newsgroups, switching to it is not > nearly as compelling as ASP was in about '99. > That's why it hasn't taken off as Microsoft had > predicted. I remember projections back in 2002 > and '03 from MS that had ASP.NET adoption > way higher by 2004 than it is right now in 2006. > > It's not that I don't like it from a technical perspective, > I definitely like the common library, C#, the ease of > component creation relative to COM, Web > Services, besides other aspects. Windows app > creation is definitely much easier, and VS 2003 > is the best dev tool I've used so far. Nevertheless, > from a practical point of view, for most sites, they're > better off with just classic ASP. I thought this thread was a good example of the "Annie Get Your Gun
Syndrome"... "Anything you can do, I can do better..." In a perfect world, code is written, stored in a safe place, fully accessible only by those who need it. This code was well written, well formatted & indented, richly filled with comments detailing every change and the revision the changes belong to. It’s easy to read, easy to retrieve. The comments in the code detailed function calls & Subs called. It also listed every link to an external file and detailed the use of same. If you had any question at all, the answer was spelled out right there in the code. As a new developer, you had it all. Unfortunately, this isn't real world. Best Practices aside, not everyone implements them. Reasons usually are cost driven. Most often, management understands they are throwing a pair of dice something will not go wrong. So there isn't enough time to document, the users want features implemented now, not a week later so you can document your changes, verify backups, update change control and document your database. Look at .Net as a product. Not a development tool, a product that lives and breathes on retail shelves. Where did some of the features come from? Anyone ever notice that C# is pretty much Java? Why don't you need to register DLL's any longer if you use .Net? I can remember way back when I did my first website, I wanted a COM component installed on the server. The host said "No, sorry, we don't install any 3rd party COM components on OUR servers." Part of the features of the .Net environment were created to get around a lot of limitations website developers had with 3rd party hosting companies. .Net provides a language that was easy to migrate from Java (after all, why use that, it isn't Microsoft) and make it possible for more and more websites to get from everything else and into .Net. Software is a volume game. You need to sell lots and lots of copies to make lots and lots of money. Selling software volume licenses isn't enough, you need people buying retail copies. So forget cfm, php, asp, etc, etc, etc. Move to .Net today. All you small developers, forget Java and Cold Fusion, it's time to come up in the world and use .Net. Unfortunately, there go those best practices again. .Net is high maintenance. It is really for ENTERPRISE development where you can maintain those Best Practices. Even then, it is still hard to migrate from anything to .Net. I have spoken with dozens of .Net developers over the years. Everyone that tried a large migration from VB 6 or ASP Classic to .Net had problems from the start. In the end, everyone started from scratch. And all those websites that are moving to .Net every day? Some are still doing it after 3 years and aren't even half complete. So that small one man shop maintaining a dozen sites for clients? He probably won’t be moving any to .Net anytime soon. He’ll play with it, start to make some changes to some sites to get a feel for it. But I doubt very many of those guys are moving to .Net. If you look at some sites, eBay comes to mind, they were a huge ASP shop, using some heavy CGI implementations on the backend. They have said no to .Net and moved from Windows to Java on Sun hardware. And there is this one teeny tiny issue with .Net. Buy into it and you’re on Windows Server. I’m not putting down Windows 2003 Server. I use it for my websites. But with .Net, there isn’t any viable option for another hardware and/or OS platform except windows. Yes, I know there are a few options out there. Novell has Mono, the open source solution to run .Net on Sun Solaris, Linyx and Mac. But these are too new and lack sufficient field implementation for serious use. Time will tell with these. I contract for a LARGE phone company. Name starts with "V". You can figure it out. A lot of the company has moved to .Net. A lot hasn't. We are a 3 man IT shop (a Directror, 1 Developer, that’s me and 1 Help Desk person) that works on it’s own without any direction from Corporate IT. We work directly for a business unit. I work on an intranet site that manages the work for a nationwide project. It's pure, classic ASP. We considered moving to .Net. We ended up saying "No, stay in ASP". Why? There go those damn "Best Practices" again getting in the way. There isn't time to migrate to .Net. It would take us (as in me since I’m the only developer) 9 dedicated months to build the framework. In the meantime, the work continues in the field and the users want changes to the application on a weekly basis to support the work. We implement at least 20 enhancements a month to this application and about a dozen changes and/or fixes due to business rule changes. Unless you’re an Enterprise with a few million to throw at .Net, you won’t be headed there anytime soon. Yeah, I know some small guys using .Net by themselves. Go to any hosting company and ask them how many sites served by a single server are using .Net. Not too many. Like I said, “Anything you can do…” I can do it too. In some ways, better or more efficiently than .Net. In other ways more efficiently but not better, and some ways better than .Net but not as efficiently. It’s a trade off. Because in the end, it doesn’t matter what platform is better, the work still has a deadline that needs to be met. And you use the tool that allows you to meet your customers needs now, not in 9 months. Because if you don’t, someone else surely will. *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** > Unless you're an Enterprise with a few million to throw at .Net, you First, Good post Dan. I agree with much of it.> won't be headed there anytime soon. Yeah, I know some small guys using > Net by themselves. Go to any hosting company and ask them how many > sites served by a single server are using .Net. Not too many. That said, we're in a simliar environment as you...2 person dev team. We decided to go with .net for no particular reason, actually. Just that we had to start from scratch, so figured since we're an MS shop, we might as well. So, I think there are small firms/groups using .net, but I completely agree, it's not really something you 'migrate to' as much as 'time to start a new project, now's the time to switch to .net' > Like I said, "Anything you can do." I can do it too. In some ways, I completely agree. .net is great, but, as you said, really designed for > better or more efficiently than .Net. that ideal best-practices fully managed environment. For many web sites, I feel .net is actually overkill. > Because in the end, it doesn't matter what platform Well said.> is better, the work still has a deadline that needs to be met. And you > use the tool that allows you to meet your customers needs now, not in 9 > months. Because if you don't, someone else surely will. -Darrel >I just did a project that uses a simple file based I agree> database using Datasets serialized to XML files. It > works okay for very basic stuff, though obviously > it's not a real database that can be managed without > some custom programming. > I agree - plus, I am finding that my customers don't like getting their work delivered as ASP.net, because they can't work with it > As for ASP.NET. I said it this three years ago > on these .net newsgroups, switching to it is not > nearly as compelling as ASP was in about '99. > That's why it hasn't taken off as Microsoft had > predicted. I remember projections back in 2002 > and '03 from MS that had ASP.NET adoption > way higher by 2004 than it is right now in 2006. and they generally prefer to have the ability of tweaking a few things. So right now I have a hard time selling this technology! > I have had such a miserable experience with the lite version (express), I have no desire to try the fully loaded Visual Studio.> It's not that I don't like it from a technical perspective, > I definitely like the common library, C#, the ease of > component creation relative to COM, Web > Services, besides other aspects. Windows app > creation is definitely much easier, and VS 2003 > is the best dev tool I've used so far. Nevertheless, > from a practical point of view, for most sites, they're > better off with just classic ASP. Show quoteHide quote > > > > "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message > news:%23dhkF0NGGHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> you are right. >> >> Classic ASP was simpler and therefore easier to learn, use and maintain. >> >> ASP.net is hard to learn and use. ASP.net is improving but has a ways to > go. Version 1 was a start, 2.0 is better, hopefully >> version 3 will be better yet. >> >> The biggest problem I see is the divided development community. > Different languages and different development tools hinder >> communication and learning. >> >> Learning tools like Web developer express are painful to use because they > are so sluggish in performance and make new users cringe >> with annoying slow response time. >> >> There is still not a good file based sql database which can be easily > deployed. Access is still the only file based option, which >> isn't all bad. SQL server Express is not supported by web hosts because > of claimed security reasons >> >> >> ===================================== >> Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers >> >> >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:mjUxf.155$US3.103@trnddc04... >> > Team development with ASP was no problem, >> > as long it was done right. Frankly, it was not too >> > difficult doing it right, as long as you were >> > following a few simple Source Safe practices. >> > >> > We must've done thousands upon thousands of updates to >> > several hundred ASP files over 5 years, on several sites, using a team >> > that often included up to 5-8 developers working on the same site. >> > So I'm astonished when people say that classic ASP site maintenance >> > was much harder than ASP.NET. It's a completely >> > bogus issue, unless you were doing a lot of COM component >> > updates. Yes, we used them, but sparingly. They were a hassle to >> > update, since they required server restarts. >> > >> > Reutilization with ASP? Server side includes! We used them >> > all over the place. You could also accomplish quite a bit >> > of the code/presentation separation using SSI, >> > Server.Transfer and Execute methods, in addition to script >> > components, and vbscript classes. Was really never a problem >> > for me, even if code/UI were mixed. >> > >> > >> > >> > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message >> > news:OpOgJtHGGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> >> I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the > page. >> >> >> >> NO reutilization; >> >> NO separation between presentation layers; >> >> NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the >> > code. >> >> >> >> Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? > Possible >> >> for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. >> >> When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? >> >> >> >> I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things >> > goes >> >> out of control very easy if control is not intensive. >> >> >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message >> > news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06... >> >> >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very >> >> > intensely, including maintaining the types of code >> >> > that you call complete mess. I never found any >> >> > complete mess code that I couldn't understand >> >> > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET >> >> > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of >> >> > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to >> >> > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand >> >> > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, >> >> > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. >> >> > >> >> > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> >> >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... >> >> >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being > avoided >> > in >> >> >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. >> >> >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change >> > it, >> >> > you >> >> >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the >> > DLL >> >> > is >> >> >> not obsfucated. >> >> >> The key word in google is: Reflector >> >> >> >> >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... >> >> >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried >> >> >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the >> >> >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem >> >> >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always >> >> >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly >> >> >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to >> >> >> > the site's folder. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed >> >> >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside >> >> >> > developers doing work on their site. At the >> >> >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, >> >> >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new >> >> >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you >> >> >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind >> >> >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes > even >> >> >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without > the >> >> >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does >> >> >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > Hmmm ---
You make reference to having "Best Practices for SourceSafe" and doing "Thousands upon thousands of updates to several hundred ASP files over 5 years", but you failed to notice that one of your developers and/or vendors published part of your website as a .DLL? Why is this ASP.NET's fault for your companies inability to demand from someone that is updating your site to document what they're doing? I have a real problem with outsiders remotely accessing our servers and installing junk. For starters... they never tell anyone what they're doing. They change junk and don't tell anyone. They create folders and dependencies that when changed, will cause the application to fail... which in return will cause me to have to call them and pay them more money to support and application that they impropertly delivered to begin with. Catch-22. I see this all the time in IT. I demand that they give me their setups, program files, source, documentation, and whatever else they require for me to setup their application and then I install it. I know I'm the one that will be getting the 1AM phone call when something breaks or have to come in on a weekend to fix something. Having someone else do it for me is a recipe for disaster and you end up spending more money and time for it in the long run. You sound like you're fairly component with ASP but you still failed to notice that an application that is running on your webserver does not have any source -- or you simply assumed that it did. I don't believe you can blame the technology for incompetence. "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message news:mjUxf.155$US3.103@trnddc04...Show quoteHide quote > Team development with ASP was no problem, > as long it was done right. Frankly, it was not too > difficult doing it right, as long as you were > following a few simple Source Safe practices. > > We must've done thousands upon thousands of updates to > several hundred ASP files over 5 years, on several sites, using a team > that often included up to 5-8 developers working on the same site. > So I'm astonished when people say that classic ASP site maintenance > was much harder than ASP.NET. It's a completely > bogus issue, unless you were doing a lot of COM component > updates. Yes, we used them, but sparingly. They were a hassle to > update, since they required server restarts. > > Reutilization with ASP? Server side includes! We used them > all over the place. You could also accomplish quite a bit > of the code/presentation separation using SSI, > Server.Transfer and Execute methods, in addition to script > components, and vbscript classes. Was really never a problem > for me, even if code/UI were mixed. > > > > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message > news:OpOgJtHGGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page. >> >> NO reutilization; >> NO separation between presentation layers; >> NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the > code. >> >> Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? >> Possible >> for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages. >> When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes? >> >> I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things > goes >> out of control very easy if control is not intensive. >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message > news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@trnddc06... >> >I programmed classic ASP for several years, very >> > intensely, including maintaining the types of code >> > that you call complete mess. I never found any >> > complete mess code that I couldn't understand >> > and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET >> > I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of >> > classes, and make sure I can compile them back to >> > same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand >> > the code, to even fix the most minor of issues, >> > which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome. >> > >> > "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwal***@springwireless.net> wrote in message >> > news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> >> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess... >> >> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided > in >> >> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this. >> >> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change > it, >> > you >> >> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the > DLL >> > is >> >> not obsfucated. >> >> The key word in google is: Reflector >> >> >> >> "Raymond" <noth***@33.net> wrote in message >> > news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@trnddc05... >> >> > They say it's easier, but has anyone tried >> >> > maintaining an ASP.NET site without the >> >> > source code of the dlls? This was not a problem >> >> > with classic ASP, all the code was almost always >> >> > just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly >> >> > readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to >> >> > the site's folder. >> >> > >> >> > But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed >> >> > by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside >> >> > developers doing work on their site. At the >> >> > end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder, >> >> > and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new >> >> > developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you >> >> > maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind >> >> > files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even >> >> > extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the >> >> > source code??? How do you even understand what the code does >> >> > exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare! >> >> > >> >> > In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >  
Other interesting topics
Only allow enter key in MultiLine textbox
Deriving from MembershipUser and ASPNET Config Tool ASP.net and thread safety Class based on singleton pattern and instance methods in that clas RollOver and onMouseOver? Strong typing for user controls High memory in a ASP.NET application - how to monitor, what can cause? question re: date format in RSS news feeds How use newest userid in auto INSERT (2.0) delegation question |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
