473,882 Members | 1,576 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Disadvantages in Visual Studio 2005 (Web sites)

In the book:
"Working with Microsoft Visual Studio 2005"
Craig Skibo wrote:
"The power of Visual Studio 2005 lies in its ability to empower users to
build, test, and debug powerful applications quickly and easly."

I don't agree on what concernes ASP .NET Web Sites in VS2005.

All what involves Namespaces in Web sites has been disappeared. I know
you can still MANUALLY manage them, but not QUICKLY and EASLY. In a
project I can subdivide the App_Code Folder in subfolders, but if I use
the Powerfull "Class View" Window, I'm not very glad to see an infinity
number of classes, all placed at the root of the project namespace.

Grouping in namespaces is one of the most powerful skills tha .net gave
us, since 1.0 and not only for .Net Windows Projects.

Someone could reply me that the problem is pre-compilation. I know that
now you can choose how to build your Web site, and this is very good.
But the need of defining namespaces and grouping classes is indipendent
from the way I'll decide to deploy the Web Site.

Is this a "by design" issue?. Or it is a bug? In my opinion is a BIG
black hole.

I'm sorry for this lines, but I'm tired to search for workarounds for an
IDE, abive all when a functionality was already present in the previous
version.

Marco Roello
ma**********@cn rservice.it
Jan 26 '06
54 6511

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:17******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
Gerry,
You are saying that I'm creating a problem that don't exists.
I say that the problem exists, because before changing the behavior of a
project template-driven code generator, a developer Team should consider the impact with the past.
I don't agree.
If you want to work the old way, stick with 2003.
Nothing / no-one os forcing you to stay current.

You must admint that a Default Behavior has changed, and it has changed ONLY for Web Projects. WITHOUT motivations.
So ? Get over it and move on.
I can't speak to motiviation -although I tend to agree with you on this
point, it is still irrelevant.

If you don't need namespaces in Web sites, you don't need them either in
Windows Forms, Control... etc. Why there they works as I expect?
So can I open a bug request in Microsoft telling them that Windows Forms
projects namespace management have to be removed?
again - i can't speak to MS motivation - and again what does it matter ?

Or do you think that Microsoft can do what he thinks its better without
considering the approach model proposed in the past (and in the present)?
well , it is their product - what do you think ?

When you were talking about namespaces in subfolders you were in WRONG. Do
you agree?
No - I never ever mentioned namespaces in subfolders - only class names.
Why the need of changing how the Name of classes are built in the Code-Behind?

I couldn't say. The more important question is - why do you care ?

"gerry" wrote:
I agree that you are seeing a change in the way that a web project works. I'm not really sure what the driving purpose behind the change was ( not
that I have looked into it ) , but I disagree with your assertion that the change is a problem.
You have it fixed in your mind how things should work, and rather than just accept that the change, you are fighting it and creating a problem where one really does not exist.
If you have a true need for namespaces because you have a class that will also be used outside of your web project, then it should be created and
maintained in a separate class library project and referenced by your web project, then you would have the same namespace behaviour as you did in
2003. And if you have some legit reason for namespaces within the web
project you are free to create them yourself as you please. Sure it means some extra manual effort, but that is the price you pay for insisting on
having something that isn't required.

since the bug in the dataset template has been exposed , do you have any
other issue that actually relates to a web project being namespace-less ?

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:99******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
Gerry,
That's simply not true.
They are not working as I expect.


No not as you expected, but that doesn't make it wrong.
But we have found a workaround.
And about the first post you made:

> please open up vs 2005 and try this for yourself
> mark is absolutely correct, web forms have the subfolder prepended to
the
> class name in vs2005.
> /default.aspx - class = _default
> /subfolder/defualt.aspx - class = subfolder_defau lt
> /subfolder2/defualt.aspx - class = subfolder2_defa ult

the generated code is NOT inside a new namespace, but is the CLASS
NAME that
is built with the syntax: myfolder_myclas s.


and that is exactly what i said "class = " , I made no mention at all of
namespaces
I was simply addressing the statement that 2 default.aspx's can't have a
class name collision unless you go out of your way to create one.

It seems that there are differences between vb projects and c#
projects templates.

Everyone in this thread are forgotting one of the most important question of
this thread.
In VS2003 (since VS2002), the default behavior was creating
NAMESPACES for
each subfolder of the project.

Now everything has been lost. All you posts are confirming that the

behavior
of VS2005 has totally changed.


I am failing to see what 'has been lost' ?

And you must assume that in Class Library projects, Control Library
projects, Windows Form projects, the behavior of building namespaces
in completly different. That's the fact. So my question is simply: WHY?


completely different compared to what ?
as far as i can tell these still works exactly the same as they did in

2003
Compatibility is one of the most important thing that we need to improve development continuity, but it seems that I'm the only developer of Web Projects in C# since VS2002, or this requirement it's not furhter

important.

correct - multiple namespaces within a single web project are no longer
necessary / important

"Gerry Hickman" wrote:

> Scott Allen wrote:
>
> > Ah, I think I found the culprit.
>
> > There appears to be a bug in the VS2005 xsd template.
>
> This is what I was wondering; is it correct to say that "namespaces " in > general are working in VS2005, but there's a problem with DataSets that > use xsd?
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman (London UK)
>


Jan 31 '06 #31
Thanks fou your opinions.

When I develop a product, and I release a new version of it, my customers
aren't so open. But since now, I won't care of their opinion.

"gerry" wrote:

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:17******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
Gerry,
You are saying that I'm creating a problem that don't exists.
I say that the problem exists, because before changing the behavior of a
project template-driven code generator, a developer Team should consider

the
impact with the past.


I don't agree.
If you want to work the old way, stick with 2003.
Nothing / no-one os forcing you to stay current.

You must admint that a Default Behavior has changed, and it has changed

ONLY
for Web Projects. WITHOUT motivations.


So ? Get over it and move on.
I can't speak to motiviation -although I tend to agree with you on this
point, it is still irrelevant.

If you don't need namespaces in Web sites, you don't need them either in
Windows Forms, Control... etc. Why there they works as I expect?
So can I open a bug request in Microsoft telling them that Windows Forms
projects namespace management have to be removed?


again - i can't speak to MS motivation - and again what does it matter ?

Or do you think that Microsoft can do what he thinks its better without
considering the approach model proposed in the past (and in the present)?


well , it is their product - what do you think ?

When you were talking about namespaces in subfolders you were in WRONG. Do
you agree?


No - I never ever mentioned namespaces in subfolders - only class names.
Why the need of changing how the Name of classes are built in the

Code-Behind?

I couldn't say. The more important question is - why do you care ?

"gerry" wrote:
I agree that you are seeing a change in the way that a web project works. I'm not really sure what the driving purpose behind the change was ( not
that I have looked into it ) , but I disagree with your assertion that the change is a problem.
You have it fixed in your mind how things should work, and rather than just accept that the change, you are fighting it and creating a problem where one really does not exist.
If you have a true need for namespaces because you have a class that will also be used outside of your web project, then it should be created and
maintained in a separate class library project and referenced by your web project, then you would have the same namespace behaviour as you did in
2003. And if you have some legit reason for namespaces within the web
project you are free to create them yourself as you please. Sure it means some extra manual effort, but that is the price you pay for insisting on
having something that isn't required.

since the bug in the dataset template has been exposed , do you have any
other issue that actually relates to a web project being namespace-less ?

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:99******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
> Gerry,
> That's simply not true.
> They are not working as I expect.

No not as you expected, but that doesn't make it wrong.

> But we have found a workaround.
> And about the first post you made:
>
> > please open up vs 2005 and try this for yourself
> > mark is absolutely correct, web forms have the subfolder prepended to the
> > class name in vs2005.
> > /default.aspx - class = _default
> > /subfolder/defualt.aspx - class = subfolder_defau lt
> > /subfolder2/defualt.aspx - class = subfolder2_defa ult
>
> the generated code is NOT inside a new namespace, but is the CLASS NAME that
> is built with the syntax: myfolder_myclas s.

and that is exactly what i said "class = " , I made no mention at all of
namespaces
I was simply addressing the statement that 2 default.aspx's can't have a
class name collision unless you go out of your way to create one.

>
> It seems that there are differences between vb projects and c# projects > templates.
>
> Everyone in this thread are forgotting one of the most important question of
> this thread.
> In VS2003 (since VS2002), the default behavior was creating NAMESPACES for
> each subfolder of the project.
>
> Now everything has been lost. All you posts are confirming that the
behavior
> of VS2005 has totally changed.

I am failing to see what 'has been lost' ?

>
> And you must assume that in Class Library projects, Control Library
> projects, Windows Form projects, the behavior of building namespaces in > completly different. That's the fact. So my question is simply: WHY?
>

completely different compared to what ?
as far as i can tell these still works exactly the same as they did in 2003
> Compatibility is one of the most important thing that we need to improve > development continuity, but it seems that I'm the only developer of Web > Projects in C# since VS2002, or this requirement it's not furhter
important.

correct - multiple namespaces within a single web project are no longer
necessary / important

>
> "Gerry Hickman" wrote:
>
> > Scott Allen wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, I think I found the culprit.
> >
> > > There appears to be a bug in the VS2005 xsd template.
> >
> > This is what I was wondering; is it correct to say that "namespaces " in > > general are working in VS2005, but there's a problem with DataSets that > > use xsd?
> >
> > --
> > Gerry Hickman (London UK)
> >


Jan 31 '06 #32
Hi abunet,

Just to clarify, I'm not the same "gerry" that posted above and below on
this. Where you say "about the first post you made" below, I don't think
it was me that made the post you were quoting...

abunet wrote:
Gerry,
That's simply not true.
They are not working as I expect.
But we have found a workaround. And about the first post you made:


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Feb 1 '06 #33
I know that there are many people who "liked" the project-based development
that came about in VS 2002/2003. I am not one of them. I cannot be happier
with what Microsoft has provided in the form of website "solution", as it
were. More so, not realizing that the subdirectory of App_<whatever> was a
Framework change and not just something for VWD, I am even more impressed
with the efforts made by the ASP.NET team in making these changes available
for web programmers.

Now, let me put my opinions into perspective. Until VS 2005, I have not had
an interest in using Visual Studio as my development. All of my 1.x web
applications were created using a text editor. The only times I would use
VS 2002/2003 would be to test something, like Crystal Reports or web
services, and then modify the generated code to suit my needs. With VS 2005
(I have been primarily using VWD Express just for kicks), Microsoft has
finally created an IDE (besides FPW/VFP) that I'm willing to use. I am
currently developing two small web apps using VWD Express and the experience
has been great. I have chosen to add namespaces, but I realized that
namespaces are not necessary because there should be no risk of having two
or more classes with the same name.

For me, the change to the website approach is perfect for developing
websites. I am currently developing our work standards and frankly, this
approach works with the way I want to approach website development. First,
I start with a website. I will add as many pages (ASPX files) as needed,
along with the associated code-behind files. If I have a class that will be
used by more than one page, then I will put that class within my class file
in the App_Code subdirectory. If I discover that I need that class for
more than one website, then I will put it into a C# class library and
probably put the assembly into the GAC. For the most part, that covers my
development needs.

Web applications are not Windows applications. Under VS 2002/2003, they
were made to look similar; however, the paradigms are far too different to
keep them together. The change to the website approach is one of the best
moves that Microsoft has made in years, in my opinion.

My point is that you disagree with this point of view. However, just
because you disagree with the approach doesn't mean Microsoft did something
wrong. It just means that you're not willing to accept their change in
approach. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:31******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
You're right. I was meaning that It doesn't work LIKE ALL the other VS
project types.
You need to change your mindset and accept that the difference exists and
WITHOUT MOTIVATION.

Someone maybe is thinking that I'm one of the anti-microsoft products
posters.
I'm speaking as a 12 Years developer in Microsoft Products. I've found a
lot
of bugs in this years, and accepted them like all developers.

But I still continue to say this TYPE of changes are inaccetable.

When you say that the change EXISTS and is not a problem, you are
admitting
that there was NO REASON to make the change.

And the TEST is that this Behavior persists in the other type of VS
projects.

"Christophe r Reed" wrote:
This is not about how YOU expect it to work; it's about how the designers
expect it to work. You need to change your mindset and be open to these
changes.
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Feb 1 '06 #34
> My point is that you disagree with this point of view. However, just
because you disagree with the approach doesn't mean Microsoft did
something wrong. It just means that you're not willing to accept their
change in approach. Nothing more, nothing less.


Looking at this change from an abstract point of view, MS simply moved the
citical data from the project file to the solution file. This is annoying
because solution files used to be no more than groupigs of related projects,
now they hold vital information about the web project.

It used to be that you could have a web site be part of a solution and also
be a part of another solution without a problem. Now you need to make sure
that your critical settings for that web site reside in two different
solutions. Blah! The other half of the critical settings are in the
Web.config file now (ie, references)... Not really big deal.

The problem is that Ms took functionality away from web sites, such as being
able to exclude a file from source control, or from the web site itself.
It's a little annoying that things that used to work do not work anymore.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the huge breaktrough anywhere here...
Just some settings reshuffled, some functionality taken away. You can now
pre-compile the whoe web site (hooray!), but it takes forever to do so (the
modify-compile-test process is much slower now).

As for being able to have duplicate class names, it's really a non-issue if
you like to distribute your web app ^H^H^H site by merging all assemblies
with the aspnet_merge.ex e utility, duplicate class names break it, so if you
want to distribute less than a zillion .DLLs, you have to have unique names.

All in all, I want more control over my web site/project. I personally
cannot wait for Web Application Projects to mature so I can have more
control over my web site.
Feb 1 '06 #35
Hi Gabriel,
Looking at this change from an abstract point of view, MS simply moved the
citical data from the project file to the solution file. This is annoying
because solution files used to be no more than groupigs of related projects,
now they hold vital information about the web project.
I don't think this is correct. The solution file is almost redundant in
the context of WebSite's in VS2005, and you don't need a project file at
all with all those horrible paths and references. The WebSite is now
just a collection of files that reside in a folder. Many of the Web
Project settings have now been moved to web.config and personally I
prefer this, as it's just a text file I can edit without worrying about
breaking a project or confusing the Source Control. With a WebSite in
VS2005 you can delete your solution at any time and create a new one if
you like without losing anything of any importance. The new model also
makes it MUCH easier to switch from a FileSystem website running on a
local box to an IIS website running on a FrontPage extended production
server.
It used to be that you could have a web site be part of a solution and also
be a part of another solution without a problem. Now you need to make sure
that your critical settings for that web site reside in two different
solutions. Blah!
I'm pretty sure you can create six solutions all pointing to the same
website if you want.
The problem is that Ms took functionality away from web sites, such as being
able to exclude a file from source control, or from the web site itself.
You can still right-click a file and choose "Exclude from Project" and
it will rename it as *.exclude and show it greyed out in the IDE. If
you're using Source Control you will get an extra warning dialog saying
that you are renaming a file.

The way we run it is to never add the solution to Source Control, just
the website.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the huge breaktrough anywhere here...
Just some settings reshuffled, some functionality taken away. You can now
pre-compile the whoe web site (hooray!), but it takes forever to do so (the
modify-compile-test process is much slower now).


You can build just one page if you want, and if you choose "build"
instead of "rebuild" it will do an incremental build so it only builds
the web pages that have changed. With a well designed site using
App_Code etc, it's pretty quick to do incremental.

You are right, however, that in general VS2005 is slower than VS2003.
This is because Microsoft don't know how to write efficient code and
have no incentive to do so - take a look at Vista beta if you don't
believe me - slow and bloated beyond belief.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Feb 2 '06 #36
the context of WebSite's in VS2005, and you don't need a project file at
all with all those horrible paths and references.
Horrible? They're vital, they have to go somewhere...
Project settings have now been moved to web.config and personally I prefer
this, as it's just a text file I can edit without worrying about breaking
a project or confusing the Source Control.
How does a project file confuse source control? Plus if you use bad syntax
it's just as easy to break web.config. Project files are also text files,
they just happen to have a different syntax.
VS2005 you can delete your solution at any time and create a new one if
you like without losing anything of any importance.
Well, you be the judge... Solution files are also text files, so open one
up with notepad, and take a look at the data stored about web sites: It's
everything that used to be in the project file that they would have a hard
time justifying putting into web.config, such as project configurations
(debug, release, etc... some source control configs, and a couple other
things. If you have changed any of these things away from their defaults,
it is a pain to reconfigure everything if you switch solution files.
The new model also makes it MUCH easier to switch from a FileSystem website
running on a local box to an IIS website running on a FrontPage extended
production server.
Much easier than what? file system based web sites are new with VS2005 no?
I'm pretty sure you can create six solutions all pointing to the same
website if you want.
Yep, just re-configure each solution. Might be easier to cut and paste the
settings between solution files.
You can still right-click a file and choose "Exclude from Project" and it
will rename it as *.exclude and show it greyed out in the IDE.
It's not the same as "exclude from source control." There are many files
that one might want to keep in a project, but exclude from source control
(images, javascript/images from third party libraries, etc...).
You can build just one page if you want, and if you choose "build" instead
of "rebuild" it will do an incremental build so it only builds the web
pages that have changed. With a well designed site using App_Code etc,
it's pretty quick to do incremental.
I do not trust building to catch all the errors though. Rebuilding the
solution regularly is a good habit to have, it might save hours from chasing
"ghost errors," errors that go away when you do a full rebuild.
This is because Microsoft don't know how to write efficient code and have
no incentive to do so - take a look at Vista beta if you don't believe
me - slow and bloated beyond belief.


It is not fair to expect high performance and stability out of a beta
version... If you were gonna get that, then it would not be a beta, would
it?

Anyway, I just get the sense in general that web sites/applications in
ASP.NET are a couple generations behind in maturity compared to WinForms
applications. MS just came out with this new way of doing things and
managed to piss off many people by oversimplifying the model and removing
features.

You really cannot say, for example, "lose the stupid references to outside
objects" because those references are vital.... You also cannot say "let's
treat web applications as if they were HTML web sites." They are not simple
web sites, if we were able to do what we want to do with Dreamweaver, why
would we be VS users?

Like someone said: Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Feb 2 '06 #37
Gabriel,

In general, I agree with your vision.
I know that I haven't many alternatives than accept changes that Microsoft
decide are better for me.

The main thread object was: Disadavantages. ...
This started when I found that the conversion of a VS2003 project to VS2005
wasn't linear.
When VB programmers made the jump from VS6 to VS.NET, they found many
differences, and some features gone away. But VS6 and VS2002 shared only the
Name.

In my opinion, it's inaccettable to be afraid that in a possible future
VS2006 version, my old projects have been to rewritten. Above all when a new
Product is released every year.

Also I think that if you make a change to the project/solution structure,
you should inform the users about the changes. For what concernes DataSets
and NameSpace, I haven't found any MS document that talks about that. If
anyone have found them, please inform me.

Finally, I'd like to say that I'm also a Visual FoxPro developer. Now VFP is
at version 9, and I since VFP5 (maybe VFP3 but I'm not sure), I dind't had
all this conversion projects, instead I always found many new features.
This demonstrates that a Team that write a good product, can maintain
compatibility and add functionalities , without making them in conflict.

Someone wrote in this thread:
"If you don't like VS2005, just stay in VS2003".

VS2003 can't generate .net 2.0 assemblies, so Microsoft forces me to buy
VS2005 to stay current. .NET tries to eliminate the dll HELL, and I certanly
don't want to start with VS versions HELL.

Christopher wrote:
Web applications are not Windows applications.
I'm sorry for my English, maybe in Italian I could explain better my opinions.

"Gabriel Magaña" wrote:
the context of WebSite's in VS2005, and you don't need a project file at
all with all those horrible paths and references.


Horrible? They're vital, they have to go somewhere...
Project settings have now been moved to web.config and personally I prefer
this, as it's just a text file I can edit without worrying about breaking
a project or confusing the Source Control.


How does a project file confuse source control? Plus if you use bad syntax
it's just as easy to break web.config. Project files are also text files,
they just happen to have a different syntax.
VS2005 you can delete your solution at any time and create a new one if
you like without losing anything of any importance.


Well, you be the judge... Solution files are also text files, so open one
up with notepad, and take a look at the data stored about web sites: It's
everything that used to be in the project file that they would have a hard
time justifying putting into web.config, such as project configurations
(debug, release, etc... some source control configs, and a couple other
things. If you have changed any of these things away from their defaults,
it is a pain to reconfigure everything if you switch solution files.
The new model also makes it MUCH easier to switch from a FileSystem website
running on a local box to an IIS website running on a FrontPage extended
production server.


Much easier than what? file system based web sites are new with VS2005 no?
I'm pretty sure you can create six solutions all pointing to the same
website if you want.


Yep, just re-configure each solution. Might be easier to cut and paste the
settings between solution files.
You can still right-click a file and choose "Exclude from Project" and it
will rename it as *.exclude and show it greyed out in the IDE.


It's not the same as "exclude from source control." There are many files
that one might want to keep in a project, but exclude from source control
(images, javascript/images from third party libraries, etc...).
You can build just one page if you want, and if you choose "build" instead
of "rebuild" it will do an incremental build so it only builds the web
pages that have changed. With a well designed site using App_Code etc,
it's pretty quick to do incremental.


I do not trust building to catch all the errors though. Rebuilding the
solution regularly is a good habit to have, it might save hours from chasing
"ghost errors," errors that go away when you do a full rebuild.
This is because Microsoft don't know how to write efficient code and have
no incentive to do so - take a look at Vista beta if you don't believe
me - slow and bloated beyond belief.


It is not fair to expect high performance and stability out of a beta
version... If you were gonna get that, then it would not be a beta, would
it?

Anyway, I just get the sense in general that web sites/applications in
ASP.NET are a couple generations behind in maturity compared to WinForms
applications. MS just came out with this new way of doing things and
managed to piss off many people by oversimplifying the model and removing
features.

You really cannot say, for example, "lose the stupid references to outside
objects" because those references are vital.... You also cannot say "let's
treat web applications as if they were HTML web sites." They are not simple
web sites, if we were able to do what we want to do with Dreamweaver, why
would we be VS users?

Like someone said: Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Feb 2 '06 #38
Excuse me for the error.

"Gerry Hickman" wrote:
Hi abunet,

Just to clarify, I'm not the same "gerry" that posted above and below on
this. Where you say "about the first post you made" below, I don't think
it was me that made the post you were quoting...

abunet wrote:
Gerry,
That's simply not true.
They are not working as I expect.
But we have found a workaround.

And about the first post you made:


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Feb 2 '06 #39
You are not forced to anything. In all of this, you have a choice. One of
the advantages of the .NET Framework as a whole is that you can create
programs independent of Visual Studio, thus for no cost (except for the cost
of Windows). In fact, if you can't program in .NET without Visual Studio,
then I assert that you're not a programmer at all.

Programming is not all of the bells and whistles that the various IDEs that
exist in the development world; it's the code. Any self-respecting
programmer should be able to pull a text editor and start typing. You don't
need Intellisense, you don't need project files, you don't need drag and
drop functionality, etc. While all of these are nice to have and help in
the rapid application development process, if you can't code, the bells and
whistles are more of a distraction.

I had a boss once who loaded VB on his computer and he started messing
around with developing a series of forms for a new application he had in
mind. He was so impressed with himself until he got to a point where all he
had were forms with no code. The minute he started to add code to his
forms, he totally lost interest because he couldn't do it. Up until that
point in time, he thought he was programming in Visual Basic.
Unfortunately, with all the wizards and other tools that IDEs provide, there
are many more "programmer s" that shouldn't really exist.

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are looking at the
"disadvanta ges" of VS 2005 when none of these changes should make any
difference at all to you. If you cannot create a website using a text
editor and the .NET Framework (any version), then you need to step back
first and reevaluate your programming skills. If you are too dependent on
the IDE to accomplish your programming, then, as I stated earlier, you're
not a programmer at all. Additionally, these "disadvanta ges" should be mere
inconveniences, not show-stoppers in your development progress.
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

"abunet" <ab****@ab.it > wrote in message
news:99******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
Gabriel,

In general, I agree with your vision.
I know that I haven't many alternatives than accept changes that Microsoft
decide are better for me.

The main thread object was: Disadavantages. ...
This started when I found that the conversion of a VS2003 project to
VS2005
wasn't linear.
When VB programmers made the jump from VS6 to VS.NET, they found many
differences, and some features gone away. But VS6 and VS2002 shared only
the
Name.

In my opinion, it's inaccettable to be afraid that in a possible future
VS2006 version, my old projects have been to rewritten. Above all when a
new
Product is released every year.

Also I think that if you make a change to the project/solution structure,
you should inform the users about the changes. For what concernes DataSets
and NameSpace, I haven't found any MS document that talks about that. If
anyone have found them, please inform me.

Finally, I'd like to say that I'm also a Visual FoxPro developer. Now VFP
is
at version 9, and I since VFP5 (maybe VFP3 but I'm not sure), I dind't had
all this conversion projects, instead I always found many new features.
This demonstrates that a Team that write a good product, can maintain
compatibility and add functionalities , without making them in conflict.

Someone wrote in this thread:
"If you don't like VS2005, just stay in VS2003".

VS2003 can't generate .net 2.0 assemblies, so Microsoft forces me to buy
VS2005 to stay current. .NET tries to eliminate the dll HELL, and I
certanly
don't want to start with VS versions HELL.

Christopher wrote:
Web applications are not Windows applications.


I'm sorry for my English, maybe in Italian I could explain better my
opinions.

"Gabriel Magaña" wrote:
> the context of WebSite's in VS2005, and you don't need a project file
> at
> all with all those horrible paths and references.


Horrible? They're vital, they have to go somewhere...
> Project settings have now been moved to web.config and personally I
> prefer
> this, as it's just a text file I can edit without worrying about
> breaking
> a project or confusing the Source Control.


How does a project file confuse source control? Plus if you use bad
syntax
it's just as easy to break web.config. Project files are also text
files,
they just happen to have a different syntax.
> VS2005 you can delete your solution at any time and create a new one if
> you like without losing anything of any importance.


Well, you be the judge... Solution files are also text files, so open
one
up with notepad, and take a look at the data stored about web sites: It's
everything that used to be in the project file that they would have a
hard
time justifying putting into web.config, such as project configurations
(debug, release, etc... some source control configs, and a couple other
things. If you have changed any of these things away from their
defaults,
it is a pain to reconfigure everything if you switch solution files.
>The new model also makes it MUCH easier to switch from a FileSystem
>website
>running on a local box to an IIS website running on a FrontPage extended
>production server.


Much easier than what? file system based web sites are new with VS2005
no?
> I'm pretty sure you can create six solutions all pointing to the same
> website if you want.


Yep, just re-configure each solution. Might be easier to cut and paste
the
settings between solution files.
> You can still right-click a file and choose "Exclude from Project" and
> it
> will rename it as *.exclude and show it greyed out in the IDE.


It's not the same as "exclude from source control." There are many files
that one might want to keep in a project, but exclude from source control
(images, javascript/images from third party libraries, etc...).
> You can build just one page if you want, and if you choose "build"
> instead
> of "rebuild" it will do an incremental build so it only builds the web
> pages that have changed. With a well designed site using App_Code etc,
> it's pretty quick to do incremental.


I do not trust building to catch all the errors though. Rebuilding the
solution regularly is a good habit to have, it might save hours from
chasing
"ghost errors," errors that go away when you do a full rebuild.
> This is because Microsoft don't know how to write efficient code and
> have
> no incentive to do so - take a look at Vista beta if you don't believe
> me - slow and bloated beyond belief.


It is not fair to expect high performance and stability out of a beta
version... If you were gonna get that, then it would not be a beta,
would
it?

Anyway, I just get the sense in general that web sites/applications in
ASP.NET are a couple generations behind in maturity compared to WinForms
applications. MS just came out with this new way of doing things and
managed to piss off many people by oversimplifying the model and removing
features.

You really cannot say, for example, "lose the stupid references to
outside
objects" because those references are vital.... You also cannot say
"let's
treat web applications as if they were HTML web sites." They are not
simple
web sites, if we were able to do what we want to do with Dreamweaver, why
would we be VS users?

Like someone said: Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Feb 2 '06 #40

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
2322
by: Shapper | last post by:
Hello, I am starting 2 new projects to deliver in January 2006. I want to create them in Asp.Net 2.0 using Visual Studio 2005. All my clients web sites are Visual Studio 2003 projects in Asp.Net 1.1 / VB.NET. These web sites use Access Databases and NOT Microsoft SQL 2000. In the future I will need to make a few changes now and then to this web sites.
8
16294
by: William LaMartin | last post by:
I just received my Visual Studio upgrade to 2005 and tried to create a new web site via File | New Web Site with location http. Unfortunately I received the following error: "Visual Web Developer does not support creating Web sites on a SharePoint Web server" If I create a new server extensions 2002 web in IIS and mark it as an application and try to use it from Visual Studio I receive the same error.
8
1563
by: jdn | last post by:
I have a root application that has various sub-applications (subdirectories set up as applications within IIS). All of the sub-applications rely on the root application for profiles, membership, etc. This all worked fine for a bit, but now, I get an error when trying to build the root site: "It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level. This error can be caused by a...
1
2902
by: cnixuser | last post by:
Hello, I am having a problem that I believe is related to the way a stream reader object looks for a text file by default. What I am doing is using a StreamReader object to read the text of a text file which includes some html code to populate html formatted content as the text of an asp:label (<asp:label>). The reading of the text file itself goes just fine ;however, this only occurs when I use an absolute file path which will not work of...
0
9931
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9777
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,...
0
11108
Oralloy
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...
0
10403
tracyyun
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...
0
9557
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7956
isladogs
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...
0
5978
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4601
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
2
4198
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.