Jonathan Crossland
Posts: 630
Nickname: jonathanc
Registered: Feb, 2004
|
Jonathan Crossland is a software architect for Lucid Ocean Ltd
|
|
|
|
ASP.NET Framework Should Haves
|
Posted: Aug 19, 2009 8:47 AM
|
|
ASP.NET should have been a plug-in from the start.
The IIS Handler, should have been split into (.NET with ASP.NET) and (.NET without ASP.NET). The idea of a config file and a WebConfigurationManager is not and should not have been specific to ASP.NET.
One cannot help but feel that ASP.NET was designed with Web Server Controls as the flagship feature. "Create that 3rd party market for web". No real thought paid into how people actually use the web on simple terms.
What I am writing here, probably resembled the paper David Heinemeier Hansson scribbled on when thinking and designing Ruby on Rails, but I have no intention of mapping features, just stating the obvious.
Get Server returns html
Post Server *saves data and returns html
Querystring may change what code is executed, and change the "context"
Url may require changing, remapping, extension changes etc
Now, to do this in ASP.NET is relatively straight forward?
Yes it is, simple enough to do each thing, but it gets more complicated when you want all these ideas together.
There is also a grey area as to what we should call easy. Yes it's easy to do x, but is it simple and will it remain simple as time goes by.
The minute you start asking some questions, ASP.NET starts to give varying levels of success. What if it was posted from a different server? What if the html had to be static and not dynamic? what if you need to create your own physical files and return those to the browser? What if you did not want an aspx page at all? What if your new Module wants to create the Page (HttpHandler)
Asp.NET is far too cluttered, and muddled. The design from, Web Server to a response, should have been completely extensible and pluggable.
The problems that I have come across, over the last few months (again), have all been relating to ASP.NET not being able to let go. ASP.NET has so many tenuous links to what you write, its everything but impossible to break away.
A framework should always be designed in layers. A framework should not be a large foundational block, written to sit at the bottom only.
if I am not entirely clear, perhaps a few links into oddities will help.
Actionless Form
Scenarios where switching viewstate off like this does not actually work.
and why caching problems like this does not work properly all the time.
Double postback scenarios
The ridiculous IsPostBack code and scenarios
and it does not end. Friendly adaptors, bad html to asp.net naming, lack of rudimentary support for url manipulation, deflected posts and more, makes ASP.NET a framework look like this.
In my humble opinion, on design/framework notions here are some ASP.NET should haves.
- The HttpRuntime and associated server objects should have been better formulated and allow for better involvement. Allow extensibility.
- The runtime should have made Pages (HttpHandler) an optional unit of packaging and code, not the complete target.
- Better fine grained Page type. Split it into more pieces, separating cache, viewstate and more from the design. So we can use at any of the levels of interest.
- HttpHandlers should have been designed as a clear open and extensible list of handlers. The pattern should be more workflow like.
- The compilation process of asp.net syntax and html should have been an exposed set of objects, also extensible. (build providers)
- Expressions should have been designed much better, and give us control of more of the syntax.
- It should have been easy to create an aspx file and not have code behind, and include your own syntactical sugar.
- Asp.NET should have been a plug-in to the .net engine for the web, and not soo tightly coupled.
- Classic ASP should have been a continued 'available' and compatible unit within the framework.
- Should have reduced the gap between Server and Client side code. not server controls writing client code out, but rather a whole new better solution
- All that time it took to develop usercontrols and pages and server controls, could have been better spent on using existing syntax and an html object model for controls. It would have been compliant, less error prone and significantly better.
Personally, I cannot wait for the rewrite of ASP.NET. Unfortunately with all the man hours, money and face they have put into ASP.NET - they wont be brave to throw it away. Yes folks you will be stuck with it, and its even going to version 4.
I like the .NET framework as a whole, I love the c# language, but ASP.NET is a beast. Why on earth they built MVC on top, I'll never know. If it was not for Visual Studio supporting ASP.NET, it would be a disaster.
ASP.NET just should not have!
Read: ASP.NET Framework Should Haves
|
|
Previous Topic
