By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,823 Members | 756 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,823 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Question about ASP.NET Application Dev, a good development paradigm

P: n/a
Rod
The parent company where I work like to use a methodology popularized by
Fusebox, for web application development. Fusebox, from what I have been
able to gather, is best suited to Cold Fusion. I've checked Fusebox's
website (www.fusebox.org), and even they claim that the current fusebox will
not work for ASP.NET. Of course, I want to use ASP.NET (we have other
ASP.NET applications we wrote some time ago), but I also want to have a
robust ASP.NET application, such as following a methodology like fusebox
would provide.

Therefore, my question is, what development methodology should I follow,
which will be standardized like fusebox is, and more compatible with
ASP.NET?

Rod
Nov 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
Microsoft has a User Interface Process Application Block that looks
interesting:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...a/html/uip.asp

-Jason

Rod wrote:
The parent company where I work like to use a methodology popularized by
Fusebox, for web application development. Fusebox, from what I have been
able to gather, is best suited to Cold Fusion. I've checked Fusebox's
website (www.fusebox.org), and even they claim that the current fusebox will
not work for ASP.NET. Of course, I want to use ASP.NET (we have other
ASP.NET applications we wrote some time ago), but I also want to have a
robust ASP.NET application, such as following a methodology like fusebox
would provide.

Therefore, my question is, what development methodology should I follow,
which will be standardized like fusebox is, and more compatible with
ASP.NET?

Rod

Nov 18 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.