The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

.NET Buzz Forum
Whidbey debate: Is the page an application ?

0 replies on 1 page.

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 0 replies on 1 page
Paschal

Posts: 1621
Nickname: bigapple
Registered: Nov, 2003

Paschal is a .Net developer
Whidbey debate: Is the page an application ? Posted: Jun 18, 2004 1:30 AM
Reply to this message Reply

This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz by Paschal.
Original Post: Whidbey debate: Is the page an application ?
Feed Title: help.net
Feed URL: http://www.asp.net/err404.htm?aspxerrorpath=/pleloup/Rss.aspx
Feed Description: .Net for mankind !
Latest .NET Buzz Posts
Latest .NET Buzz Posts by Paschal
Latest Posts From help.net

Advertisement

Alister post this comment regarding the conversation I reported on Widbey concerns:

To add my two cents, maybe in Orcas the page will be the Application and the UI will be generated from the page. It means that in this case we go full circle, back to a proprietary system, where the UI (Windows, HTML, XHTML, etc...) doesn't matter.

I'm pleased to hear that you found my email conversation with Bertrand Le Roy "exciting and deep".

I think that one of the things Microsoft has done wrong, from a communications point of view, is use the term Whidbey to refer both to version 2 of the ASP.NET framework, and to the 2005 version of its VS.NET tool.

We both wonder about the fuss with MasterPages, for example. From a code/framework point of view, we might think, "What's the big deal?" But from the point of view of the IDE, it may be a very big deal. A tighter integration between the framework, the application, and the IDE can only be a good thing.

One of the things that dawned on me during my exchange with Bertrand, and I think bears repeating, is the concept of the ASPX Page as an *application* surface, not a UI surface.

If we see the Page as representing the UI of an application, then it feels "wrong" to place data sources on the Page. Conversely, if we see the Page as representing the application surface, then it's perfectly valid to place data sources on the Page.

I personally find it extremely hard to visualize an n-tiered application. Yet I find it very easy to visualize an application surface, onto which I place the pieces I need ... much like Lego blocks onto the traditional green base.

I think that seeing the Page as an application surface brings our understanding of ASP.NET more in line with the direction that the ASP.NET Team is taking. It provides a conceptual base from which we can understand *why* data objects and business objects are being placed on the Page itself.

That is perhaps the most powerful idea that I took away from my exhange with Bertrand. So, I thought I might add it here as a kind of epilogue to this archive.

(Thanks for this archive, by the way.)

 

 

Read: Whidbey debate: Is the page an application ?

Topic: The Israeli Agile development workshop - New site Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Visual Basic Power Pack Article Up on MSDN

Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2019 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use