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.
27  1879 
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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@trnddc05. .. They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
the site's folder.
But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
developers doing work on their site. At the
end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
source code??? How do you even understand what the code does
exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare!
In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on
your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required.
-- brcue (sqlwork.com)
"Raymond" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@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.
"Marina" <so*****@nospam .com> wrote in message
news:ue******** *****@tk2msftng p13.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@trnddc05. .. They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
the site's folder.
But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
developers doing work on their site. At the
end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
source code??? How do you even understand what the code does
exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare!
In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
Too late, you're the NEW developer. Dlls
have already been made and deployed into
the site. Now you have to fix bugs in them
without any source code. What do you do?
"Bruce Barker" <br************ ******@safeco.c om> wrote in message
news:Oh******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl... not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on
your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required.
-- brcue (sqlwork.com)
"Raymond" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@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.
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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@trnddc05. .. They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
the site's folder.
But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
developers doing work on their site. At the
end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
source code??? How do you even understand what the code does
exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare!
In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
If this is ever the case, then someone in management didn't do their job
right if they allowed only the result of compiling the source code to
remain, and not the source code itself.
Basically, the only option is to start from scratch and rewrite the
application, since you obviously can't hack the DLL. And whoever allowed
this to happen just learned a valuable lesson.
This, however has nothing to do with shortcomings of ASP.NET. Like I said,
ASP.NET can be written exactly as ASP was, with 100% of the code in plain
text in the .aspx - so this is always an option.
"Raymond" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:FvSxf.38$M G1.2@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" <so*****@nospam .com> wrote in message
news:ue******** *****@tk2msftng p13.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@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.
>
>
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
--
Co-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" <br************ ******@safeco.c om> wrote in message
news:Oh******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@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" <rw*****@spring wireless.net> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@tk2msf tngp13.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@trnddc05. .. They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
the site's folder.
But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
developers doing work on their site. At the
end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
source code??? How do you even understand what the code does
exactly without the source code??? It's a nightmare!
In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page.
NO reutilization;
NO separation between presentation layers;
NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the code.
Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible
for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages.
When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes?
I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things goes
out of control very easy if control is not intensive.
"Raymond" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:rjTxf.49$D i.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" <rw*****@spring wireless.net> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@tk2msf tngp13.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$M G1.28@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.
>
>
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: snicks |
last post by:
I have a couple 2003 projects that I'm maintaining. I just got a new
computer and would like to forgo Studio 2003 if I can maintain the ASP.NET
1.1 sites without upgrading them to ASP.NET 2.0. Can I use Studio 2005 to
develop/debug/maintain ASP.NET 1.1 sites?
Thank you.
|
by: Vishal |
last post by:
Hello,
I have 2 sites running with different domain names.
I want to share the session between these 2 sites. Both uses same SQL server
database.
I have enabled the SQL server session state but it does not maintain the
same state. When i looked in the database i found that it create 2 session
IDs for each site. However i got the same id in .NET here is the value
stored in ther database
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
| | |
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |
