By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
460,028 Members | 1,066 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 460,028 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps

P: n/a
ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
to develop professional quality web applications.

ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development
to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
results.

For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.

To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some
XSLT in the output path.

Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
structures in XML-compatible HTML.

Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:

http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output

The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
object and namespace.

Now it is easy to do the following:

- create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
manual labour that ASPX demands
- redirect after (attempted) state change requests
- form submit with location.replace

You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid
html output.

This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML
or HTML4.0 etc.

Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
What a load of rubbish.

And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how
bad it is.
They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
Microsoft must be good.
Not alway true.

Feb 4 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
24 Replies


P: n/a
I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web: System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use
to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ?

Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to use ASPX.

You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

re: Now it is easy to do the following:
- create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
manual labour that ASPX demands
Could you post example code ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
to develop professional quality web applications.

ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development
to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
results.

For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.

To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some
XSLT in the output path.

Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
structures in XML-compatible HTML.

Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:

http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output

The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
object and namespace.

Now it is easy to do the following:

- create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
manual labour that ASPX demands
- redirect after (attempted) state change requests
- form submit with location.replace

You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid
html output.

This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML
or HTML4.0 etc.

Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
What a load of rubbish.

And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how
bad it is.
They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
Microsoft must be good.
Not alway true.

Feb 4 '06 #2

P: n/a
You are mistaken.

ASPX *is* an HttpHandler.

How can you be an ASP.NET MVP and not know that?

Quote:

For example, ASP.NET maps all requests for .aspx files to the
PageHandlerFactory class in the global machine.config file:

<httphandlers>
...
<add verb="*" path="*.aspx"
type="System.Web.UI.PageHandlerFactory,System.Web" />
...
</httphandlers>

Ha ha ha ha ha

Why not spend more time studying and waste less time talking rubbish.

Feb 4 '06 #3

P: n/a
huh ?
wow !
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:

System.Web.IHTTPHandler, and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use
to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ?

Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to use ASPX.
You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

re:
Now it is easy to do the following:
- create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
manual labour that ASPX demands


Could you post example code ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
to develop professional quality web applications.

ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development
to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
results.

For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.

To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some
XSLT in the output path.

Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
structures in XML-compatible HTML.

Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:

http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output

The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
object and namespace.

Now it is easy to do the following:

- create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
manual labour that ASPX demands
- redirect after (attempted) state change requests
- form submit with location.replace

You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid
html output.

This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML
or HTML4.0 etc.

Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
What a load of rubbish.

And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how
bad it is.
They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
Microsoft must be good.
Not alway true.


Feb 4 '06 #4

P: n/a
> Why not spend more time studying and waste less time talking rubbish.

Perhaps we folks who help others here talk rubbish from time to time. After
all, we're human too. But in all the posts I've read from you, John, you've
done nothing *but* talk rubbish.

It might be well for you to take a bit of your own medicine. Yes, it's
possible to design your own object model, and your own way of doing things.
God help you if you have to work with other developers, though, or have to
interoperate with another ASP.Net application.

You've been proclaiming your superior intelligence and wisdom for a very
long time on this newsgroup, and putting Microsoft down as a bunch of idiots
for as long. However, there's an old saying: "Money talks." Microsoft is the
single most successful software company in the world. Would you have us
believe that this is a fluke? Or perhaps they might know a thing or 2 that
you do not.

Still working for Karamasoft? I wonder if Microsoft would promote Karamasoft
on the ASP.Net and GotDotNet web sites if they realized that you were
continuously insulting them here. Apparently, *somebody* at Karamasoft likes
the Microsoft ASP.Net Page object model. Every page on the site uses it. Why
don't they use your ingenious idea? And if you're so much smarter, why are
you building your own framework on top of theirs?

--
Ha ha ha ha ha

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
You are mistaken.

ASPX *is* an HttpHandler.

How can you be an ASP.NET MVP and not know that?

Quote:

For example, ASP.NET maps all requests for .aspx files to the
PageHandlerFactory class in the global machine.config file:

<httphandlers>
...
<add verb="*" path="*.aspx"
type="System.Web.UI.PageHandlerFactory,System.Web" />
...
</httphandlers>

Ha ha ha ha ha

Why not spend more time studying and waste less time talking rubbish.

Feb 4 '06 #5

P: n/a
You didn't answer the question.

The question for you regards the subject of your post :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

Are you going to answer ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... You are mistaken.

ASPX *is* an HttpHandler.

How can you be an ASP.NET MVP and not know that?

Quote:

For example, ASP.NET maps all requests for .aspx files to the
PageHandlerFactory class in the global machine.config file:

<httphandlers>
...
<add verb="*" path="*.aspx"
type="System.Web.UI.PageHandlerFactory,System.Web" />
...
</httphandlers>

Ha ha ha ha ha

Why not spend more time studying and waste less time talking rubbish.

Feb 4 '06 #6

P: n/a
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... huh ?
wow !
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"


If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:

System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use
to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ?

Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to

use ASPX.

You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

re:
> Now it is easy to do the following:
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands


Could you post example code ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
> Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
> to develop professional quality web applications.
>
> ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development
> to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
> results.
>
> For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>
> To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some
> XSLT in the output path.
>
> Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
> app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
> structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>
> Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>
> http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
> which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>
> The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
> object and namespace.
>
> Now it is easy to do the following:
>
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands
> - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
> - form submit with location.replace
>
> You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid
> html output.
>
> This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML
> or HTML4.0 etc.
>
> Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
> What a load of rubbish.
>
> And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how
> bad it is.
> They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
> Microsoft must be good.
> Not alway true.
>



Feb 4 '06 #7

P: n/a
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.
Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
huh ?
wow !


"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :

> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"

If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:

System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ?
Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to
use ASPX.

You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

re:
> Now it is easy to do the following:
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands

Could you post example code ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
> Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
> to develop professional quality web applications.
>
> ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application

development > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
> results.
>
> For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>
> To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some > XSLT in the output path.
>
> Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
> app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
> structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>
> Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>
> http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
> which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>
> The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
> object and namespace.
>
> Now it is easy to do the following:
>
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands
> - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
> - form submit with location.replace
>
> You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid > html output.
>
> This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML > or HTML4.0 etc.
>
> Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
> What a load of rubbish.
>
> And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how > bad it is.
> They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
> Microsoft must be good.
> Not alway true.
>



Feb 5 '06 #8

P: n/a
a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
..aspx/.html/.asp :
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.
Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
huh ?
wow !


"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :

> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"

If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?

After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:

System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ?
Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to
use ASPX.

You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.

re:
> Now it is easy to do the following:
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands

Could you post example code ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
> Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
> to develop professional quality web applications.
>
> ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application

development > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
> results.
>
> For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>
> To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some > XSLT in the output path.
>
> Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
> app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
> structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>
> Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>
> http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
> which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>
> The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
> object and namespace.
>
> Now it is easy to do the following:
>
> - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
> manual labour that ASPX demands
> - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
> - form submit with location.replace
>
> You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid > html output.
>
> This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML > or HTML4.0 etc.
>
> Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
> What a load of rubbish.
>
> And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how > bad it is.
> They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
> Microsoft must be good.
> Not alway true.
>



Feb 5 '06 #9

P: n/a
And that answers the question, how ?

From that same page :

---000---

An HTTP handler is a class that is responsible for rendering a particular resource,
or a particular type of resource.

In fact, each time you add an ASP.NET Web page to your project,
you are essentially writing a HTTP handler.

This is because when the HTML portion of an ASP.NET Web page gets
dynamically compiled at run time, it directly or indirectly inherits from
System.Web.UI.Page, which happens to be a HTTP handler implementation.

---000---

So, while ASPX is just an acronym for Active Server Pages eXtension,
it is only one of *many*, or *any* web extensions which can be used as a
container for ASPX functionality.

In other words, it's the *default* extension for System.Web.UI.Page,
which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

Your pointing me to this resource, written by Scott Mitchell, shows that you
misunderstood the question completely and don't understand what an httphandler
is, like your friend John doesn't understand it either.

Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity" extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago when ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.

It's quite easy...and it's an example of an httphandler which allows a page container, like .juan,
different than a page with an aspx extension, to process instructions which will be processed by
the aspnet_isapi module, in order to render markup for whichever browser calls the page.

This isn't rocket science; it's just basic semantic definitions.

Continuing to quote from Scott's article :

The code-behind class for an ASP.NET Web page is an HTTP handler, knowing how to
render the markup for the particular Web page. It helps to think about handlers as specialized
renderers that know how to create the markup for a particular type of resource.

HTH...


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:uW*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"


What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> huh ?
> wow !


> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>>
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>>
>> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
> System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ? >>
>> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to > use ASPX.
>>
>> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>>
>> re:
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>>
>> Could you post example code ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
>> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
>> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >
>> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
>> > results.
>> >
>> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >
>> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >
>> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
>> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >
>> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >
>> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>> >
>> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
>> > object and namespace.
>> >
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >
>> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid >> > html output.
>> >
>> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >
>> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
>> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >
>> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how >> > bad it is.
>> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> > Microsoft must be good.
>> > Not alway true.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 5 '06 #10

P: n/a
re:
with no .aspx/.html/.asp
Really ? You must be confused.

What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.

ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :

1. An error logging subsystem
2. An HTTP module subsystem
3. An HTTP handler subsystem

Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed* through ASPX.

The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be rendered into markup,
or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a Web-based interface
to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.

That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default* extension
for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx extension,
but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container
for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine ( aspnet_isapi.dll )
and to the IIS worker process.

In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.

The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming requests to
elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the ASP.NET
application's web.config:

<httpHandlers>
<add
verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
path="elmah/default.aspx"
type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken
</httpHandlers>

So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have understood it.
It really would save everybody's time here.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
.aspx/.html/.asp :
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"


What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> huh ?
> wow !


> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>>
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>>
>> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
> System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ? >>
>> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to > use ASPX.
>>
>> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>>
>> re:
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>>
>> Could you post example code ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
>> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
>> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >
>> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some
>> > results.
>> >
>> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >
>> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >
>> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
>> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >
>> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >
>> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>> >
>> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
>> > object and namespace.
>> >
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >
>> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid >> > html output.
>> >
>> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >
>> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
>> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >
>> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how >> > bad it is.
>> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> > Microsoft must be good.
>> > Not alway true.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 5 '06 #11

P: n/a
Hi Juan,

Just a clarification here:
Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity"
extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago when
ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to
allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.
"Vanity" extensions are not the only use for custom HttpHandlers. For
example, I recently had a requirement to return a text-only version of a
report which is generated from XML using XSLT. Since IE and some other
browsers ignore the "text/plain" content-type header, you can't return a
page with a .aspx extension as plain text. So I wrote an HttpHandler that
handles requests for ".txt" extensions.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... And that answers the question, how ?

From that same page :

---000---

An HTTP handler is a class that is responsible for rendering a particular
resource,
or a particular type of resource.

In fact, each time you add an ASP.NET Web page to your project,
you are essentially writing a HTTP handler.

This is because when the HTML portion of an ASP.NET Web page gets
dynamically compiled at run time, it directly or indirectly inherits from
System.Web.UI.Page, which happens to be a HTTP handler implementation.

---000---

So, while ASPX is just an acronym for Active Server Pages eXtension,
it is only one of *many*, or *any* web extensions which can be used as a
container for ASPX functionality.

In other words, it's the *default* extension for System.Web.UI.Page,
which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

Your pointing me to this resource, written by Scott Mitchell, shows that
you
misunderstood the question completely and don't understand what an
httphandler
is, like your friend John doesn't understand it either.

Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity"
extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago when
ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to
allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.

It's quite easy...and it's an example of an httphandler which allows a
page container, like .juan,
different than a page with an aspx extension, to process instructions
which will be processed by
the aspnet_isapi module, in order to render markup for whichever browser
calls the page.

This isn't rocket science; it's just basic semantic definitions.

Continuing to quote from Scott's article :

The code-behind class for an ASP.NET Web page is an HTTP handler, knowing
how to
render the markup for the particular Web page. It helps to think about
handlers as specialized
renderers that know how to create the markup for a particular type of
resource.

HTH...

Feb 5 '06 #12

P: n/a
re:
"Vanity" extensions are not the only use for custom HttpHandlers.
Of course not. I was just presenting an example. One of many possibilities.
Thanks for clarifying this.

The example you present is spot-on.

It's hard to educate kids with an attitude, isn't it ?

;-)


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uV**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hi Juan,

Just a clarification here:
Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity" extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago when ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.
"Vanity" extensions are not the only use for custom HttpHandlers. For example, I recently had a
requirement to return a text-only version of a report which is generated from XML using XSLT.
Since IE and some other browsers ignore the "text/plain" content-type header, you can't return a
page with a .aspx extension as plain text. So I wrote an HttpHandler that handles requests for
".txt" extensions.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
And that answers the question, how ?

From that same page :

---000---

An HTTP handler is a class that is responsible for rendering a particular resource,
or a particular type of resource.

In fact, each time you add an ASP.NET Web page to your project,
you are essentially writing a HTTP handler.

This is because when the HTML portion of an ASP.NET Web page gets
dynamically compiled at run time, it directly or indirectly inherits from
System.Web.UI.Page, which happens to be a HTTP handler implementation.

---000---

So, while ASPX is just an acronym for Active Server Pages eXtension,
it is only one of *many*, or *any* web extensions which can be used as a
container for ASPX functionality.

In other words, it's the *default* extension for System.Web.UI.Page,
which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

Your pointing me to this resource, written by Scott Mitchell, shows that you
misunderstood the question completely and don't understand what an httphandler
is, like your friend John doesn't understand it either.

Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity" extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago when ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.

It's quite easy...and it's an example of an httphandler which allows a page container, like
.juan,
different than a page with an aspx extension, to process instructions which will be processed by
the aspnet_isapi module, in order to render markup for whichever browser calls the page.

This isn't rocket science; it's just basic semantic definitions.

Continuing to quote from Scott's article :

The code-behind class for an ASP.NET Web page is an HTTP handler, knowing how to
render the markup for the particular Web page. It helps to think about handlers as specialized
renderers that know how to create the markup for a particular type of resource.

HTH...


Feb 5 '06 #13

P: n/a
When I first "discovered" HttpHandlers, I played around with a DLL that
implemented IHttpHandler. Without creating an actual file, I was able to
map a specific file name that passed through my handler that created a
simple HTML page that was rendered in my browser. No physical file existed.
It is possible.

However, for the most part, creating pages through HttpHandlers only is not
very efficient and I rebuke the original poster's claim that ASPX files are
not the way to go. Yes, a person needs to understand programming to be
efficient, but no, just because one uses the ASPX/code-behind approach does
not make them "dumb-downed". Personally, if I had all of the time in the
world, I'd program everything in a text editor (okay, I do that for 1.x
apps) and put everything in DLLs using HttpHandlers. I'd probably even go
as far as programming in IL so I know that it's right with the CLR and not
fool around with the inefficient languages of C#, VB, C++, etc. Then, I
don't have all of the time in the world, so I need to use the tools and
libraries as efficiently as possible. As for the original poster, if going
the handler route best for him, so be it. But his assertions are opinions
and not fact. To each his own....
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
.aspx/.html/.asp :
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"


What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> huh ?
> wow !


> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>>
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>>
>> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
> System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to use >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes ? >>
>> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have to > use ASPX.
>>
>> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>>
>> re:
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>>
>> Could you post example code ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls,
>> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely
>> > hard
>> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >
>> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application development >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve
>> > some
>> > results.
>> >
>> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >
>> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include some >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >
>> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the
>> > web
>> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >
>> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >
>> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>> >
>> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
>> > object and namespace.
>> >
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >
>> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of invalid >> > html output.
>> >
>> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to XHTML >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >
>> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
>> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >
>> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised how >> > bad it is.
>> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> > Microsoft must be good.
>> > Not alway true.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 5 '06 #14

P: n/a
> It's hard to educate kids with an attitude, isn't it ?

It's frustrating, because you want to help them avoid the pitfalls you
discovered along the way. There are 2 ways to learn. You can learn by
experience, or you can learn by listening to those who already have it. The
second way is much easier than the first, but both work!

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
re:
"Vanity" extensions are not the only use for custom HttpHandlers.


Of course not. I was just presenting an example. One of many
possibilities.
Thanks for clarifying this.

The example you present is spot-on.

It's hard to educate kids with an attitude, isn't it ?

;-)


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uV**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi Juan,

Just a clarification here:
Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity"
extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago
when ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to
allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.

"Vanity" extensions are not the only use for custom HttpHandlers. For
example, I recently had a requirement to return a text-only version of a
report which is generated from XML using XSLT. Since IE and some other
browsers ignore the "text/plain" content-type header, you can't return a
page with a .aspx extension as plain text. So I wrote an HttpHandler that
handles requests for ".txt" extensions.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
And that answers the question, how ?

From that same page :

---000---

An HTTP handler is a class that is responsible for rendering a
particular resource,
or a particular type of resource.

In fact, each time you add an ASP.NET Web page to your project,
you are essentially writing a HTTP handler.

This is because when the HTML portion of an ASP.NET Web page gets
dynamically compiled at run time, it directly or indirectly inherits
from
System.Web.UI.Page, which happens to be a HTTP handler implementation.

---000---

So, while ASPX is just an acronym for Active Server Pages eXtension,
it is only one of *many*, or *any* web extensions which can be used as a
container for ASPX functionality.

In other words, it's the *default* extension for System.Web.UI.Page,
which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

Your pointing me to this resource, written by Scott Mitchell, shows that
you
misunderstood the question completely and don't understand what an
httphandler
is, like your friend John doesn't understand it either.

Every single programmer in the world must have written a "vanity"
extension.

I wrote an httphandler for the extension .juan , almost 10 years ago
when ASP came out,
and did it again when ASPX came out, primarily because the methods to
allow full
functionality changed between ASP and ASP.NET.

It's quite easy...and it's an example of an httphandler which allows a
page container, like .juan,
different than a page with an aspx extension, to process instructions
which will be processed by
the aspnet_isapi module, in order to render markup for whichever browser
calls the page.

This isn't rocket science; it's just basic semantic definitions.

Continuing to quote from Scott's article :

The code-behind class for an ASP.NET Web page is an HTTP handler,
knowing how to
render the markup for the particular Web page. It helps to think about
handlers as specialized
renderers that know how to create the markup for a particular type of
resource.

HTH...



Feb 5 '06 #15

P: n/a
whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx - given
that definition then you are correct
although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of physical
..aspx pages which clearly is possible.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
with no .aspx/.html/.asp
Really ? You must be confused.

What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.

ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :

1. An error logging subsystem
2. An HTTP module subsystem
3. An HTTP handler subsystem

Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed* through

ASPX.
The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be rendered into markup, or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a Web-based interface to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.

That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default* extension for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx extension,
but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container
for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine ( aspnet_isapi.dll ) and to the IIS worker process.

In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.

The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming requests to elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the ASP.NET
application's web.config:

<httpHandlers>
<add
verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
path="elmah/default.aspx"
type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken
</httpHandlers>

So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have understood it. It really would save everybody's time here.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
.aspx/.html/.asp :
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Is the question hard to understand ?

John stated in his subject :
> "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"

What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use

ASPX.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> huh ?
> wow !
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>>
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>>
>> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
> System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to
use
>> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework
classes ?
>>
>> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you
have to
> use ASPX.
>>
>> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>>
>> re:
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>>
>> Could you post example code ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User

Controls, >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >
>> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application

development
>> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some >> > results.
>> >
>> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >
>> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include

some
>> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >
>> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >
>> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >
>> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>> >
>> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
>> > object and namespace.
>> >
>> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >
>> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >
>> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of

invalid
>> > html output.
>> >
>> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to

XHTML
>> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >
>> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
>> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >
>> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised

how
>> > bad it is.
>> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> > Microsoft must be good.
>> > Not alway true.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 6 '06 #16

P: n/a
Yeah, sure.

I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.

I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )

I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx - given
that definition then you are correct
although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of physical
.aspx pages which clearly is possible.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
> with no .aspx/.html/.asp


Really ? You must be confused.

What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.

ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :

1. An error logging subsystem
2. An HTTP module subsystem
3. An HTTP handler subsystem

Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed* through

ASPX.

The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be

rendered into markup,
or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a

Web-based interface
to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.

That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*

extension
for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx extension,
but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container
for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (

aspnet_isapi.dll )
and to the IIS worker process.

In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.

The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming

requests to
elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the ASP.NET
application's web.config:

<httpHandlers>
<add
verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
path="elmah/default.aspx"
type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken
</httpHandlers>

So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have

understood it.
It really would save everybody's time here.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
> .aspx/.html/.asp :
> http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>
>
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Is the question hard to understand ?
>>
>> John stated in his subject :
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use
> ASPX.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > huh ?
>> > wow !
>>
>>
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>> >>
>> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >>
>> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >>
>> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to > use
>> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework classes > ?
>> >>
>> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you have > to
>> > use ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> re:
>> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >>
>> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User Controls, >> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard >> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >
>> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
> development
>> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve some >> >> > results.
>> >> >
>> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >> >
>> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include
> some
>> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web >> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >
>> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output
>> >> >
>> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback
>> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >
>> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of
> invalid
>> >> > html output.
>> >> >
>> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to
> XHTML
>> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX.
>> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >
>> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised
> how
>> >> > bad it is.
>> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #17

P: n/a
just for my own edification - can you point me to an official MS document
that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?

how does the example I referred to not count as sample code" ?

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Yeah, sure.

I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.

I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )

I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx - given that definition then you are correct
although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of physical .aspx pages which clearly is possible.


"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
> with no .aspx/.html/.asp

Really ? You must be confused.

What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.

ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :

1. An error logging subsystem
2. An HTTP module subsystem
3. An HTTP handler subsystem

Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed* through
ASPX.

The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be

rendered into markup,
or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a

Web-based interface
to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.

That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*

extension
for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.

So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx
extension, but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container
for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (

aspnet_isapi.dll )
and to the IIS worker process.

In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.

The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming

requests to
elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the ASP.NET application's web.config:

<httpHandlers>
<add
verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
path="elmah/default.aspx"
type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken
</httpHandlers>

So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have

understood it.
It really would save everybody's time here.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
> .aspx/.html/.asp :
> http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>
>
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Is the question hard to understand ?
>>
>> John stated in his subject :
>> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>>
>> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use > ASPX.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > huh ?
>> > wow !
>>
>>
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>> >>
>> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >>
>> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >>
>> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going to
> use
>> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework

classes
> ?
>> >>
>> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you

have
> to
>> > use ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> re:
>> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from
the >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >>
>> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User

Controls,
>> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely hard
>> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >
>> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
> development
>> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies
achieve some
>> >> > results.
>> >> >
>> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >> >
>> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can
include > some
>> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the web
>> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >
>> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before

output >> >> >
>> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback >> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >
>> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of
> invalid
>> >> > html output.
>> >> >
>> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to > XHTML
>> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX. >> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >
>> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised > how
>> >> > bad it is.
>> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #18

P: n/a
re:
just for my own edification - can you point me to an official
MS document that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?
I see you persist in deepening your misunderstanding.
Can you point to where I called ASP.NET "ASPX" ?

I explained that aspx is only a web extension, just like .html, .cfm or .juan.

re: how does the example I referred to not count as sample code ?
It is "sample code", butnot sample code which doesn't use ASPX,
which is what the op claimed should be done.

Re-read the subject line and it should be quite evident :

"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps."

I'd like to see sample code which does *not* use ASPX.
I don't think it's possible.

If the sample doesn't use aspx, which is only the default web extension
for ASP.NET, it has to use a substitute web extension with identical functionality.

IHttpHandler does not function in a vacuum.
It's only an *interface* between ASP.NET and the client.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... just for my own edification - can you point me to an official MS document
that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?

how does the example I referred to not count as sample code" ?

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Yeah, sure.

I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.

I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )

I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx - given > that definition then you are correct
> although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of physical > .aspx pages which clearly is possible.


> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>> > with no .aspx/.html/.asp
>>
>> Really ? You must be confused.
>>
>> What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
>> Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.
>>
>> ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :
>>
>> 1. An error logging subsystem
>> 2. An HTTP module subsystem
>> 3. An HTTP handler subsystem
>>
>> Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed* through > ASPX.
>>
>> The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be
> rendered into markup,
>> or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a
> Web-based interface
>> to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.
>>
>> That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*
> extension
>> for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.
>>
>> So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
>> must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx extension, >> but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container
>> for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (
> aspnet_isapi.dll )
>> and to the IIS worker process.
>>
>> In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.
>>
>> The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming
> requests to
>> elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
>> are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the ASP.NET >> application's web.config:
>>
>> <httpHandlers>
>> <add
>> verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
>> path="elmah/default.aspx"
>> type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
>> GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
>> PublicKeyToken
>> </httpHandlers>
>>
>> So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have
> understood it.
>> It really would save everybody's time here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
>> > .aspx/.html/.asp :
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> >> Is the question hard to understand ?
>> >>
>> >> John stated in his subject :
>> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >>
>> >> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not use >> > ASPX.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > huh ?
>> >> > wow !
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> >> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you going > to
>> > use
>> >> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework
> classes
>> > ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you
> have
>> > to
>> >> > use ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> re:
>> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User
> Controls,
>> >> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it extremely > hard
>> >> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
>> > development
>> >> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies achieve > some
>> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can include >> > some
>> >> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the > web
>> >> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data
>> >> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler)
>> >> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before output >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a callback >> >> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of
>> > invalid
>> >> >> > html output.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to >> > XHTML
>> >> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting ASPX. >> >> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet realised >> > how
>> >> >> > bad it is.
>> >> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from
>> >> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #19

P: n/a
my last post for this thread

the default asp.net handler for .aspx requests is a specific instance of an
http handler.
aspx cannot be implemented without using an http handler
an http handler can be implemented without using aspx ( the default .aspx
handler )
unless of course your definition of aspx is asp.net itself

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
just for my own edification - can you point me to an official
MS document that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?
I see you persist in deepening your misunderstanding.
Can you point to where I called ASP.NET "ASPX" ?

I explained that aspx is only a web extension, just like .html, .cfm or

..juan.
re:
how does the example I referred to not count as sample code ?
It is "sample code", butnot sample code which doesn't use ASPX,
which is what the op claimed should be done.

Re-read the subject line and it should be quite evident :

"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps."

I'd like to see sample code which does *not* use ASPX.
I don't think it's possible.

If the sample doesn't use aspx, which is only the default web extension
for ASP.NET, it has to use a substitute web extension with identical

functionality.
IHttpHandler does not function in a vacuum.
It's only an *interface* between ASP.NET and the client.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
just for my own edification - can you point me to an official MS document that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?

how does the example I referred to not count as sample code" ?

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Yeah, sure.

I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.

I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )

I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx -

given
> that definition then you are correct
> although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of

physical
> .aspx pages which clearly is possible.
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>> > with no .aspx/.html/.asp
>>
>> Really ? You must be confused.
>>
>> What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
>> Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.
>>
>> ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :
>>
>> 1. An error logging subsystem
>> 2. An HTTP module subsystem
>> 3. An HTTP handler subsystem
>>
>> Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed*

through
> ASPX.
>>
>> The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be
> rendered into markup,
>> or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a
> Web-based interface
>> to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.
>>
>> That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*
> extension
>> for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.
>>
>> So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
>> must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx

extension,
>> but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container >> for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (
> aspnet_isapi.dll )
>> and to the IIS worker process.
>>
>> In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.
>>
>> The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming > requests to
>> elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
>> are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the

ASP.NET
>> application's web.config:
>>
>> <httpHandlers>
>> <add
>> verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
>> path="elmah/default.aspx"
>> type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
>> GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
>> PublicKeyToken
>> </httpHandlers>
>>
>> So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have
> understood it.
>> It really would save everybody's time here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
>> > .aspx/.html/.asp :
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> >> Is the question hard to understand ?
>> >>
>> >> John stated in his subject :
>> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >>
>> >> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not

use
>> > ASPX.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > huh ?
>> >> > wow !
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> >> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you

going
> to
>> > use
>> >> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework
> classes
>> > ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you > have
>> > to
>> >> > use ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> re:
>> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from
the
>> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User
> Controls,
>> >> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it

extremely
> hard
>> >> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
>> > development
>> >> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies

achieve
> some
>> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to
go. >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can

include
>> > some
>> >> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of the
> web
>> >> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and
data >> >> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler) >> >> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before

output
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a

callback
>> >> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from the
>> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings
of >> > invalid
>> >> >> > html output.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output to
>> > XHTML
>> >> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting

ASPX.
>> >> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet

realised
>> > how
>> >> >> > bad it is.
>> >> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes

from >> >> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #20

P: n/a
You seeem to be going around in circles but,
as long as that's your last post on this thread,
this can be the last post on this thread for me, too.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:eA*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
my last post for this thread

the default asp.net handler for .aspx requests is a specific instance of an
http handler.
aspx cannot be implemented without using an http handler
an http handler can be implemented without using aspx ( the default .aspx
handler )
unless of course your definition of aspx is asp.net itself

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
> just for my own edification - can you point me to an official
> MS document that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?


I see you persist in deepening your misunderstanding.
Can you point to where I called ASP.NET "ASPX" ?

I explained that aspx is only a web extension, just like .html, .cfm or

.juan.

re:
> how does the example I referred to not count as sample code ?


It is "sample code", butnot sample code which doesn't use ASPX,
which is what the op claimed should be done.

Re-read the subject line and it should be quite evident :

"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps."

I'd like to see sample code which does *not* use ASPX.
I don't think it's possible.

If the sample doesn't use aspx, which is only the default web extension
for ASP.NET, it has to use a substitute web extension with identical

functionality.

IHttpHandler does not function in a vacuum.
It's only an *interface* between ASP.NET and the client.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> just for my own edification - can you point me to an official MS document > that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?
>
> how does the example I referred to not count as sample code" ?

> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Yeah, sure.
>>
>> I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
>> ( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )
>>
>> I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
>> or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with aspx -
> given
>> > that definition then you are correct
>> > although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of
> physical
>> > .aspx pages which clearly is possible.
>>
>>
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> re:
>> >> > with no .aspx/.html/.asp
>> >>
>> >> Really ? You must be confused.
>> >>
>> >> What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
>> >> Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.
>> >>
>> >> ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :
>> >>
>> >> 1. An error logging subsystem
>> >> 2. An HTTP module subsystem
>> >> 3. An HTTP handler subsystem
>> >>
>> >> Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed*
> through
>> > ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to be
>> > rendered into markup,
>> >> or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a
>> > Web-based interface
>> >> to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.
>> >>
>> >> That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*
>> > extension
>> >> for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
>> >> must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx
> extension,
>> >> but then it would need some other extension which serves as a container >> >> for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (
>> > aspnet_isapi.dll )
>> >> and to the IIS worker process.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.
>> >>
>> >> The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any incoming >> > requests to
>> >> elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
>> >> are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the
> ASP.NET
>> >> application's web.config:
>> >>
>> >> <httpHandlers>
>> >> <add
>> >> verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
>> >> path="elmah/default.aspx"
>> >> type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
>> >> GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
>> >> PublicKeyToken
>> >> </httpHandlers>
>> >>
>> >> So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have
>> > understood it.
>> >> It really would save everybody's time here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
>> >> > .aspx/.html/.asp :
>> >> > http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Is the question hard to understand ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John stated in his subject :
>> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and not
> use
>> >> > ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> > huh ?
>> >> >> > wow !
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> >> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> >> >> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> >> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are you
> going
>> > to
>> >> > use
>> >> >> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net Framework
>> > classes
>> >> > ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use System.Web.IHTTPHandler, you >> > have
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > use ASPX.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> re:
>> >> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from > the
>> >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User
>> > Controls,
>> >> >> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it
> extremely
>> > hard
>> >> >> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
>> >> > development
>> >> >> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies
> achieve
>> > some
>> >> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to go. >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can
> include
>> >> > some
>> >> >> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements of > the
>> > web
>> >> >> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and data >> >> >> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for example:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to httphandler) >> >> >> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before
> output
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a
> callback
>> >> >> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you from > the
>> >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> >> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs warnings of >> >> > invalid
>> >> >> >> > html output.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your output > to
>> >> > XHTML
>> >> >> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting
> ASPX.
>> >> >> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet
> realised
>> >> > how
>> >> >> >> > bad it is.
>> >> >> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes from >> >> >> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> >> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #21

P: n/a
Hmmmm,

I'm almost sorry this discussion is over it's very entertaining.

Juan, you should stop doing this:

*moves outstreched hand up and down*

and do this instead:

*moves outsrteched hand left and right*

Then everyone will understand.

:-)

--
Sincerely,

S. Justin Gengo, MCP
Web Developer / Programmer

www.aboutfortunate.com

"Out of chaos comes order."
Nietzsche
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eZ*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
You seeem to be going around in circles but,
as long as that's your last post on this thread,
this can be the last post on this thread for me, too.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
news:eA*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
my last post for this thread

the default asp.net handler for .aspx requests is a specific instance of
an
http handler.
aspx cannot be implemented without using an http handler
an http handler can be implemented without using aspx ( the default .aspx
handler )
unless of course your definition of aspx is asp.net itself

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
re:
> just for my own edification - can you point me to an official
> MS document that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?

I see you persist in deepening your misunderstanding.
Can you point to where I called ASP.NET "ASPX" ?

I explained that aspx is only a web extension, just like .html, .cfm or

.juan.

re:
> how does the example I referred to not count as sample code ?

It is "sample code", butnot sample code which doesn't use ASPX,
which is what the op claimed should be done.

Re-read the subject line and it should be quite evident :

"Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps."

I'd like to see sample code which does *not* use ASPX.
I don't think it's possible.

If the sample doesn't use aspx, which is only the default web extension
for ASP.NET, it has to use a substitute web extension with identical

functionality.

IHttpHandler does not function in a vacuum.
It's only an *interface* between ASP.NET and the client.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message

news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> just for my own edification - can you point me to an official MS

document
> that refers to ASP.NET as "ASPX" ?
>
> how does the example I referred to not count as sample code" ?

> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Yeah, sure.
>>
>> I'll give the op the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> I asked for some sample code...but I don't see his post with it.
>> ( perhaps a really simple proof-of-concept sample ? )
>>
>> I wonder if what he argued was only hot air,
>> or whether he can put his money where his mouth is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> ==================================
>> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > whatever - you are clearly equating the asp.net pipeline with
>> > aspx -
> given
>> > that definition then you are correct
>> > although the op's intent was to generate content without the use of
> physical
>> > .aspx pages which clearly is possible.
>>
>>
>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> re:
>> >> > with no .aspx/.html/.asp
>> >>
>> >> Really ? You must be confused.
>> >>
>> >> What is the container which, when called, triggers ELMAH ?
>> >> Let me help you : it's an aspx page getting called by a browser.
>> >>
>> >> ELMAH is composed of 3 subsystems :
>> >>
>> >> 1. An error logging subsystem
>> >> 2. An HTTP module subsystem
>> >> 3. An HTTP handler subsystem
>> >>
>> >> Sure, ELMAH uses an HTTP handler subsystem, but that is *conveyed*
> through
>> > ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> The HTTP handler subsystem provides a means for the error log to
>> >> be
>> > rendered into markup,
>> >> or rendered as an error report delivered via email, making ELMAH a
>> > Web-based interface
>> >> to the error log, as well as an RSS feed.
>> >>
>> >> That web-based interface *is* an ASPX page, which is the *default*
>> > extension
>> >> for System.Web.UI.Page, which *is* the HttpHandler, not ASPX.
>> >>
>> >> So ELMAH, as a web-based interface to ASP.NET's error module,
>> >> must use "aspx" to do its job. It could do it without the aspx
> extension,
>> >> but then it would need some other extension which serves as a

container
>> >> for instructions to be delivered to the ASP.NET engine (
>> > aspnet_isapi.dll )
>> >> and to the IIS worker process.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, ELMAH *does* use aspx.
>> >>
>> >> The following HttpHandler web.config entry specifies that any

incoming
>> > requests to
>> >> elmah's subdirectory and default page ( /elmah/default.aspx )
>> >> are be rendered by the ErrorLogPageFactory class configured in the
> ASP.NET
>> >> application's web.config:
>> >>
>> >> <httpHandlers>
>> >> <add
>> >> verb="POST,GET,HEAD"
>> >> path="elmah/default.aspx"
>> >> type="GotDotNet.Elmah.ErrorLogPageFactory,
>> >> GotDotNet.Elmah, Version=1.0.5527.0, Culture=neutral,
>> >> PublicKeyToken
>> >> </httpHandlers>
>> >>
>> >> So, before sending a link to an article, please make sure you have
>> > understood it.
>> >> It really would save everybody's time here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> ==================================
>> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ub**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >a browsable error log implemented using an http handler - with no
>> >> > .aspx/.html/.asp :
>> >> > http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/elmah.asp
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Is the question hard to understand ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John stated in his subject :
>> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I would like to know is how he will use IHttpHandler and
>> >> >> not
> use
>> >> > ASPX.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> "gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ev**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> > huh ?
>> >> >> > wow !
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:uo*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >> I have a question for you regarding the subject of your post
>> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "Use IHttpHandler not ASPX for pro web apps"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you intend to use IHttpHandlers for a web app,
>> >> >> >> exactly how are you going to do that without an ASPX page ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> After all, IHttpHandler is an interface in system.web:
>> >> >> > System.Web.IHTTPHandler,
>> >> >> >> and system.web is accessible from ASPX pages so, what are
>> >> >> >> you
> going
>> > to
>> >> > use
>> >> >> >> to go back and forth between the client and the .Net
>> >> >> >> Framework
>> > classes
>> >> > ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Bottom line : if you're going to use
>> >> >> >> System.Web.IHTTPHandler,

you
>> > have
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > use ASPX.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You *cannot* use IHttpHandler and not use ASPX.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> re:
>> >> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you

from
> the
>> >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Could you post example code ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> >> >> ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
>> >> >> >> ==================================
>> >> >> >> "John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> >> > ASPX which means ASPX pages, the code-behind concept, User
>> > Controls,
>> >> >> >> > Web Controls etc. is very poorly designed and makes it
> extremely
>> > hard
>> >> >> >> > to develop professional quality web applications.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ASPX is Microsoft's attempt to "dumb down" web application
>> >> > development
>> >> >> >> > to help unskilled developers such as web design agencies
> achieve
>> > some
>> >> >> >> > results.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > For high quality applications IHttpHandlers are the way to

go.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > To keep a line between the design and the function you can
> include
>> >> > some
>> >> >> >> > XSLT in the output path.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now the developer need only output the structural elements

of
> the
>> > web
>> >> >> >> > app - forms, form fields, submit buttons, hyperlinks and

data
>> >> >> >> > structures in XML-compatible HTML.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Each IHttpHandler will have an associated XSLT, for
>> >> >> >> > example:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://server/path/script.aspx (this is mapped to

httphandler)
>> >> >> >> > which processes /path/script.xslt as the final step before
> output
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The XslTransform can callback into the developer using a
> callback
>> >> >> >> > object and namespace.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now it is easy to do the following:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > - create mostly self generating applications freeing you

from
> the
>> >> >> >> > manual labour that ASPX demands
>> >> >> >> > - redirect after (attempted) state change requests
>> >> >> >> > - form submit with location.replace
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You can also include an output validater that logs
>> >> >> >> > warnings

of
>> >> > invalid
>> >> >> >> > html output.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This approach also makes it quite simple to target your

output
> to
>> >> > XHTML
>> >> >> >> > or HTML4.0 etc.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Shame on the team at Microsoft reponsible for architecting
> ASPX.
>> >> >> >> > What a load of rubbish.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > And I feel sorry for people learning ASPX who haven't yet
> realised
>> >> > how
>> >> >> >> > bad it is.
>> >> >> >> > They have made the mistake of thinking that whatever comes

from
>> >> >> >> > Microsoft must be good.
>> >> >> >> > Not alway true.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Feb 7 '06 #22

P: n/a
I just have one question: Is it better to crack the big end or the little
end of the egg when you break it?

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eZ*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
You seeem to be going around in circles but,
as long as that's your last post on this thread,
this can be the last post on this thread for me, too.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message
news:eA*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
my last post for this thread

the default asp.net handler for .aspx requests is a specific instance of
an
http handler.
aspx cannot be implemented without using an http handler
an http handler can be implemented without using aspx ( the default .aspx
handler )
unless of course your definition of aspx is asp.net itself

Feb 7 '06 #23

P: n/a
I crack the middle against the skillet's edge.

;-)

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just have one question: Is it better to crack the big end or the little end of the egg when you
break it?

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
We got a sick zebra a hat,
you ultimate tuna.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eZ*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
You seeem to be going around in circles but,
as long as that's your last post on this thread,
this can be the last post on this thread for me, too.


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"gerry" <ge**@canada.com> wrote in message news:eA*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
my last post for this thread

the default asp.net handler for .aspx requests is a specific instance of an
http handler.
aspx cannot be implemented without using an http handler
an http handler can be implemented without using aspx ( the default .aspx
handler )
unless of course your definition of aspx is asp.net itself


Feb 8 '06 #24

P: n/a

Hello

What you thinking about it?

<a href="http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~iiscor/d/6/">Vicodin side
effect</a>

G'night
--
pedrucho
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pedrucho's Profile: http://www.hightechtalks.com/m873
View this thread: http://www.hightechtalks.com/t122602

Mar 1 '07 #25

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.