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.
Jan 13 '06
27  1881 
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" <rw*****@spring wireless.net> wrote in message
news:Op******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P15.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" <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.
>
>
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote: 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 thatyou
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
Ooo! Good call! I was about to say something similar, but you’ve even
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 (“creationism ”) 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.
*************** *************** *************** *************** ***********
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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message news:mjUxf.155$ US3.103@trnddc0 4... 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" <rw*****@spring wireless.net> wrote in message
news:Op******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P15.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" <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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
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
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP11.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" <no*****@33.net > wrote in message
news:mjUxf.155$ US3.103@trnddc0 4... 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" <rw*****@spring wireless.net> wrote in message
news:Op******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P15.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" <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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
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...
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" <jo**@smith.com > wrote in message
news:ON******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.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>
"john smith" <jo**@smith.com > wrote in message
news:ON******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.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
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.
No you can't blame it on the technology just because it doesn't prevent
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" <no*****@33.net > wrote:
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.
I've seen the same scenario happen with VB6 solutions. The problem is
generally "you get what you pay for".
--
Scott http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/ 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: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
| | |
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 Dupr 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: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
