Are master files a replacement for user controls for overall layout?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Alan Silver, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    Hello,

    In classic ASP, I used to use two include files on each page, one before
    and one after the main content, to provide a consistent layout across a
    web site. That way I could just change the include files to change the
    layout. When I came to ASP.NET, I used user controls to do a similar
    thing.

    I have just been looking at master pages, and it looks like they do the
    same thing. If so, is there any advantage in using them over the user
    controls? Obviously master pages allow you to have one file instead of
    two, but that's not a huge advantage. I'm wondering if there's more to
    them than I have seen so far.

    Thanks for any info.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Oct 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Silver

    Guest

    Some of the things I can think of:
    -You can create more dynamic layouts, using designer support
    -Performance improvements, the ASP.NET runtime knows about MasterPages
    -Configurable from web.config

    I believe MasterPages came forth of a project using special controls &
    designers, so I think the runtime support is the major factor here..
    , Oct 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >Some of the things I can think of:

    Thanks for the reply, but I'm not really clearer;-(

    >-You can create more dynamic layouts, using designer support


    More dynamic in what way? Do you mean you can change them at run time?
    If so, why can't you do this with user controls?

    >-Performance improvements, the ASP.NET runtime knows about MasterPages


    The runtime knows about user controls too. Are you saying that using
    master pages gives better performance than having a user control with
    some HTML and/or server tags in? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find
    it hard to believe as you are adding an extra layer of complexity with
    master pages.

    >-Configurable from web.config


    Please explain what you mean and why this would be useful.

    >I believe MasterPages came forth of a project using special controls &
    >designers, so I think the runtime support is the major factor here..


    Thanks for the reply, but I would appreciate some more info here as I
    don't really see what you mean.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Oct 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    Hi Alan:

    With master pages you'll never have to "include" a common header and
    footer. You tell the master page where the header and footer go and
    then your content pages just plugin the content.

    Your header and footer might still be implemented inside of two user
    control files - but you'll never have to layout those two user
    controls on every content page - just on the master page(s) in your
    app.

    Make more sense?

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/


    On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:48:47 +0000, Alan Silver
    <> wrote:

    >Hello,
    >
    >In classic ASP, I used to use two include files on each page, one before
    >and one after the main content, to provide a consistent layout across a
    >web site. That way I could just change the include files to change the
    >layout. When I came to ASP.NET, I used user controls to do a similar
    >thing.
    >
    >I have just been looking at master pages, and it looks like they do the
    >same thing. If so, is there any advantage in using them over the user
    >controls? Obviously master pages allow you to have one file instead of
    >two, but that's not a huge advantage. I'm wondering if there's more to
    >them than I have seen so far.
    >
    >Thanks for any info.
    Scott Allen, Oct 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for the info. It does make sense, but I'm still not sure if I'm
    missing something here. The way you describe it (which is the way I
    understood it), master pages aren't much of an improvement over using
    two user controls. Spot the difference between the next two
    paragraphs...

    1) Using the user controls, every page "includes" two controls. Changing
    the layout of the site involves changing one or both of these controls,
    and all pages see the changes.

    2) Using master pages, every page refers to one master. Changing the
    layout of the site involves changing the one master file, and all pages
    see the changes.

    Very similar eh? Apart from the minimal advantage of having the common
    code in one file instead of two, it doesn't seem anything worth jumping
    in the air and going "whoopee" about!!

    That's why I feel I'm missing something. There must be some bigger
    advantage to master pages, no? From what I understand so far, there's
    certainly no incentive to go and change existing sites to use master
    pages. New sites will probably use them as they do have the slight
    advantage of one file over two, but the convenience isn't worth the
    effort of changing an existing site.

    Thanks for the reply. Any further comments welcome.

    >Hi Alan:
    >
    >With master pages you'll never have to "include" a common header and
    >footer. You tell the master page where the header and footer go and
    >then your content pages just plugin the content.
    >
    >Your header and footer might still be implemented inside of two user
    >control files - but you'll never have to layout those two user
    >controls on every content page - just on the master page(s) in your
    >app.
    >
    >Make more sense?
    >
    >--
    >Scott
    >http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    >
    >
    >On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:48:47 +0000, Alan Silver
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>In classic ASP, I used to use two include files on each page, one before
    >>and one after the main content, to provide a consistent layout across a
    >>web site. That way I could just change the include files to change the
    >>layout. When I came to ASP.NET, I used user controls to do a similar
    >>thing.
    >>
    >>I have just been looking at master pages, and it looks like they do the
    >>same thing. If so, is there any advantage in using them over the user
    >>controls? Obviously master pages allow you to have one file instead of
    >>two, but that's not a huge advantage. I'm wondering if there's more to
    >>them than I have seen so far.
    >>
    >>Thanks for any info.

    >


    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Oct 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:32:27 +0000, Alan Silver
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Very similar eh? Apart from the minimal advantage of having the common
    >code in one file instead of two, it doesn't seem anything worth jumping
    >in the air and going "whoopee" about!!
    >


    It is similar. Here are some advantages I can think of quickly:

    1) You want to change the layout for the entire site by, say, changing
    the position of the two user controls. Without master pages you'd have
    to go to every aspx form with those two controls and make the
    modification. With master pages you only need to make one change.

    2) You can have multiple master pages for a site and easily switch
    between master pages programatically, say, based on a user's
    preference.

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Scott Allen, Oct 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >>Very similar eh? Apart from the minimal advantage of having the common
    >>code in one file instead of two, it doesn't seem anything worth jumping
    >>in the air and going "whoopee" about!!
    >>

    >
    >It is similar. Here are some advantages I can think of quickly:
    >
    >1) You want to change the layout for the entire site by, say, changing
    >the position of the two user controls. Without master pages you'd have
    >to go to every aspx form with those two controls and make the
    >modification. With master pages you only need to make one change.


    I suppose it depends how you set up the user controls. The way I do it
    (which is directly inherited from the way I did include files in Classic
    ASP) wouldn't really give rise to this problem.

    The fact of only having one file to change is definitely an advantage,
    just not necessarily a big enough one to justify modifying existing
    pages.

    >2) You can have multiple master pages for a site and easily switch
    >between master pages programatically, say, based on a user's
    >preference.


    Well, you can do the same with the user controls. You just have to
    change two files instead of one.

    Which brings me to another point I was pondering. Is there a sensible
    way to select master pages programmatically, without incurring a
    performance hit? For example, suppose I have a site with three master
    pages, a normal one, one for Nov-Dec and one for (say) the summer
    season. I would like to be able to add a feature to the site owner's
    admin pages so they can choose the theme (ie master page). I guess I
    could do this by setting an application variable with the name of the
    current theme, but isn't that going to incur a (small) performance hit
    every time a page is loaded? For something that will only change a few
    times a year, this seems a poor trade off. Is there a more efficient way
    of doing it?

    Thanks for the info.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Oct 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:05:06 +0000, Alan Silver
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Well, you can do the same with the user controls. You just have to
    >change two files instead of one.
    >


    Yes, to some extent. You can do most of master pages using just CSS
    and relative positioning, too. I think it's important to distinguish
    between the two as:

    - user controls encapsulate a specific piece of functionality (i.e.
    a page footer)

    - master pages encapsualte layout (the footer is always wrapped in a
    <div> at the bottom of a page).

    In any case, if you already have something that works for you than no
    reason to change.

    >
    >Which brings me to another point I was pondering. Is there a sensible
    >way to select master pages programmatically, without incurring a
    >performance hit? For example, suppose I have a site with three master
    >pages, a normal one, one for Nov-Dec and one for (say) the summer
    >season. I would like to be able to add a feature to the site owner's
    >admin pages so they can choose the theme (ie master page).


    I think for that scenario I'd use <pages master="fall.master" /> in
    web.config. The WebConfigurationManager class allows writing to
    web.config now, so you could write the new setting from an admin page.

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Scott Allen, Oct 31, 2005
    #8
  9. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >>Well, you can do the same with the user controls. You just have to
    >>change two files instead of one.
    >>

    >
    >Yes, to some extent. You can do most of master pages using just CSS
    >and relative positioning, too. I think it's important to distinguish
    >between the two as:
    >
    > - user controls encapsulate a specific piece of functionality (i.e.
    >a page footer)
    >
    > - master pages encapsualte layout (the footer is always wrapped in a
    ><div> at the bottom of a page).


    That's a very good way of looking at it. Seen like that, user controls
    aren't really the ideal way to do it. Sure they work, but the master
    page approach is more logical.

    >In any case, if you already have something that works for you than no
    >reason to change.


    No, but for new sites it's worth knowing what the best practice is.

    >>Which brings me to another point I was pondering. Is there a sensible
    >>way to select master pages programmatically, without incurring a
    >>performance hit? For example, suppose I have a site with three master
    >>pages, a normal one, one for Nov-Dec and one for (say) the summer
    >>season. I would like to be able to add a feature to the site owner's
    >>admin pages so they can choose the theme (ie master page).

    >
    >I think for that scenario I'd use <pages master="fall.master" /> in
    >web.config. The WebConfigurationManager class allows writing to
    >web.config now, so you could write the new setting from an admin page.


    Yeah I saw that yesterday. Doesn't it mean that *every* page on the site
    has to use that master page though? That might not always be the best
    thing. Can individual pages override the web.config setting?

    Thanks again for the help and advice.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Oct 31, 2005
    #9
  10. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    >
    >Yeah I saw that yesterday. Doesn't it mean that *every* page on the site
    >has to use that master page though? That might not always be the best
    >thing. Can individual pages override the web.config setting?
    >


    Yes, if a page uses use MasterPageFile attribute or set's the
    MasterPageFile property before the Init event it will override what
    the web.config file says...

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Scott Allen, Nov 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >>Yeah I saw that yesterday. Doesn't it mean that *every* page on the site
    >>has to use that master page though? That might not always be the best
    >>thing. Can individual pages override the web.config setting?
    >>

    >
    >Yes, if a page uses use MasterPageFile attribute or set's the
    >MasterPageFile property before the Init event it will override what
    >the web.config file says...


    Ooh, that's good. What if I want a page not to use a master page at all?
    Say I have (common scenario) all pages in the site using a common layout
    (which would be in the one master file), but the home page has a
    different layout. In this case, it would be a waste to produce a master
    page just for the home page, you might as well just have the layout
    directly in the .aspx file. Can I tell the home page not to use a master
    at all?

    Thanks for the info.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Nov 1, 2005
    #11
  12. re:
    > Can I tell the home page not to use a master at all?


    Just don't include the MasterPageFile="~/YourMasterPage.master"
    in your Page directives.

    Using <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" %>
    won't include the MasterPage in that aspx file.

    I *never* use web.config to set a MasterPage.

    I only use <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" MasterPageFile="~/My.master"%>
    in the pages in which I want to have my Master layout inherited.




    Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
    ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Alan Silver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>Yeah I saw that yesterday. Doesn't it mean that *every* page on the site
    >>>has to use that master page though? That might not always be the best
    >>>thing. Can individual pages override the web.config setting?



    >>Yes, if a page uses use MasterPageFile attribute or set's the
    >>MasterPageFile property before the Init event it will override what
    >>the web.config file says...

    >
    > Ooh, that's good. What if I want a page not to use a master page at all? Say I have
    > (common scenario) all pages in the site using a common layout (which would be in the one
    > master file), but the home page has a different layout. In this case, it would be a
    > waste to produce a master page just for the home page, you might as well just have the
    > layout directly in the .aspx file. Can I tell the home page not to use a master at all?
    >
    > Thanks for the info.
    >
    > --
    > Alan Silver
    > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Juan T. Llibre, Nov 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:13:51 +0000, Alan Silver
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Ooh, that's good. What if I want a page not to use a master page at all?
    >Say I have (common scenario) all pages in the site using a common layout
    >(which would be in the one master file), but the home page has a
    >different layout. In this case, it would be a waste to produce a master
    >page just for the home page, you might as well just have the layout
    >directly in the .aspx file. Can I tell the home page not to use a master
    >at all?
    >


    I can't test it at the moment, but I suspect if you set the
    MasterPageFile attribute / property for the aspx page to null (or
    perhaps an empty string?), then it wouldn't use a master. I'll try
    that out later this evening...

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Scott Allen, Nov 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >> Can I tell the home page not to use a master at all?
    >
    >Just don't include the MasterPageFile="~/YourMasterPage.master" in your
    >Page directives.
    >
    >Using <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" %>
    >won't include the MasterPage in that aspx file.
    >
    >I *never* use web.config to set a MasterPage.
    >
    >I only use <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" MasterPageFile="~/My.master"%> in
    >the pages in which I want to have my Master layout inherited.


    Yeah, but the point of my question was to find an easy way of changing
    the master page for a whole site, without having to edit every page
    individually. The idea of using web.config to specify the master page
    works a treat as I can just change the one entry, and have the whole
    site use a different master page. I was just trying to find out if I was
    forced to have every page using the master page (which is the
    implication I got from the info I read yesterday), or if I could have a
    page without any master page at all.

    Thanks for the reply.

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >I think for that scenario I'd use <pages master="fall.master" /> in
    >web.config. The WebConfigurationManager class allows writing to
    >web.config now, so you could write the new setting from an admin page.


    I just tried this and it gave me an error, saying the attribute "master"
    is not recognised. I am using VWD beta 2, and .NET framework version
    2.0.50215

    I have searched the docs, and looked in the config files on my hard
    disk, but can't find any reference to an entry for "master".

    Here is the web.config...

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <configuration xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/.NetConfiguration/v2.0">
    <appSettings>
    </appSettings>
    <connectionStrings/>
    <system.web>
    <pages master="MasterPage.master" />
    <compilation debug="true"/>
    <authentication mode="Windows"/>
    </system.web>
    </configuration>


    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Nov 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >I just tried this and it gave me an error, saying the attribute
    >"master" is not recognised


    OK, I finally found it. The attribute is masterPageFile, not master. The
    correct syntax is...

    <system.web>
    <pages masterPageFile="~/MasterPage2.master" />
    </system.web>

    I also discovered that you can have a normal .aspx page in the same web
    site and it just ignores the above setting. It seems this is only used
    with a page that has a Content control.

    However, when I ran a page like this, I got errors from VWD. It compiled
    and displayed the page fine, but it complained that the element "html"
    occurs too few times (zero actually, as a page that uses a master
    shouldn't have this tag), that "asp" is an unrecognised tag prefix or
    device filter, and that the element "p" must be included within a parent
    element.

    All of these errors seem to come from the fact that the .aspx didn't
    have a full HTML like a normal page, it only had the Content control.
    Surely VWD should know about this. Any ideas why I got the errors?

    Ta ra

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Nov 1, 2005
    #16
  17. re:
    > site use a different master page. I was just trying to find out if I was forced to have
    > every page using the master page (which is the implication I got from the info I read
    > yesterday), or if I could have a page without any master page at all.


    You can have a page without any master page at all, by simply including
    an empty string as the MasterPageFile directive, as Scott surmised :

    <%@ Page MasterPageFile="" %>

    You will have to build all the HTML you need on that page though,
    which I think is what you want to do, anyway.

    You could, also, if you need several templates, determine
    a *different* MasterPageFile than the one specified in web.config :

    <script language="c#" runat="server">
    protected override void OnPreInit(EventArgs e)
    {
    this.MasterPageFile = "another.master";
    base.OnPreInit(e);
    }
    </script>

    best,



    Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
    ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Alan Silver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> Can I tell the home page not to use a master at all?

    >>
    >>Just don't include the MasterPageFile="~/YourMasterPage.master" in your Page directives.
    >>
    >>Using <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" %>
    >>won't include the MasterPage in that aspx file.
    >>
    >>I *never* use web.config to set a MasterPage.
    >>
    >>I only use <%@ Page Language="VB|C#" MasterPageFile="~/My.master"%> in the pages in
    >>which I want to have my Master layout inherited.

    >
    > Yeah, but the point of my question was to find an easy way of changing the master page
    > for a whole site, without having to edit every page individually. The idea of using
    > web.config to specify the master page works a treat as I can just change the one entry,
    > and have the whole site use a different master page. I was just trying to find out if I
    > was forced to have every page using the master page (which is the implication I got from
    > the info I read yesterday), or if I could have a page without any master page at all.
    >
    > Thanks for the reply.
    >
    > --
    > Alan Silver
    > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Juan T. Llibre, Nov 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Alan Silver

    Scott Allen Guest

    I'm using the RTM version and the syntax (both now and in beta 2 if I
    remember correctly) is:

    <pages masterPageFile="fall.master">

    Apologies if I didn't specify the correct attribute.

    You might also want to fully qualify the path, i.e:

    <pages masterPageFile="~\fall.master">

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/


    On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 16:26:50 +0000, Alan Silver
    <> wrote:

    >>I think for that scenario I'd use <pages master="fall.master" /> in
    >>web.config. The WebConfigurationManager class allows writing to
    >>web.config now, so you could write the new setting from an admin page.

    >
    >I just tried this and it gave me an error, saying the attribute "master"
    >is not recognised. I am using VWD beta 2, and .NET framework version
    >2.0.50215
    >
    >I have searched the docs, and looked in the config files on my hard
    >disk, but can't find any reference to an entry for "master".
    >
    >Here is the web.config...
    >
    ><?xml version="1.0"?>
    ><configuration xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/.NetConfiguration/v2.0">
    ><appSettings>
    ></appSettings>
    ><connectionStrings/>
    ><system.web>
    ><pages master="MasterPage.master" />
    ><compilation debug="true"/>
    ><authentication mode="Windows"/>
    ></system.web>
    ></configuration>
    Scott Allen, Nov 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Alan Silver

    Alan Silver Guest

    >You can have a page without any master page at all, by simply including
    >an empty string as the MasterPageFile directive, as Scott surmised :
    >
    ><%@ Page MasterPageFile="" %>
    >
    >You will have to build all the HTML you need on that page though, which
    >I think is what you want to do, anyway.


    I discovered that you can just have a normal aspx without any reference
    to a master page and it will work fine. The way I read the docs
    yesterday was that *all* pages in the site were forced to use the master
    page specified in web.config. It seems that this isn't right, it's only
    the pages that have a Content control, and that don't override the
    masterPageFile attribute themselves.

    So, it all looks exactly like I want, except for the errors I mentioned
    in my other post. If you can shed any light on those I would be
    grateful.

    Ta ra

    --
    Alan Silver
    (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Alan Silver, Nov 1, 2005
    #19
  20. re:
    > However, when I ran a page like this, I got errors from VWD. It compiled and displayed
    > the page fine, but it complained that the element "html" occurs too few times (zero
    > actually, as a page that uses a master shouldn't have this tag), that "asp" is an
    > unrecognised tag prefix or device filter, and that the element "p" must be included
    > within a parent element.
    >
    > All of these errors seem to come from the fact that the .aspx didn't have a full HTML
    > like a normal page, it only had the Content control. Surely VWD should know about this.
    > Any ideas why I got the errors?


    Because you don't have properly formed HTML.

    If you use the "empty string" MasterPageFile directive, as I explained in my
    previous post, and you build your HTML for the aspx file in *that* page
    ( since there's no MasterPageFile and there isn't *any* HTML coming from
    a MasterPageFile ), you'll be fine.

    i.e., :

    <%@ page Language="VB|C#" MasterPageFile="" %>

    <html>
    <head>
    <title>
    No master page.
    </title>
    </head>
    <body>
    Place whatever you want as content here.
    If you want scripting power, use code behind, or use a
    <Script language="language" runat= "server">
    functions...
    </script>
    section below the Page directive line.
    </body>
    </html>





    Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
    ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Alan Silver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I just tried this and it gave me an error, saying the attribute "master" is not
    > >recognised

    >
    > OK, I finally found it. The attribute is masterPageFile, not master. The correct syntax
    > is...
    >
    > <system.web>
    > <pages masterPageFile="~/MasterPage2.master" />
    > </system.web>
    >
    > I also discovered that you can have a normal .aspx page in the same web site and it just
    > ignores the above setting. It seems this is only used with a page that has a Content
    > control.
    >
    > However, when I ran a page like this, I got errors from VWD. It compiled and displayed
    > the page fine, but it complained that the element "html" occurs too few times (zero
    > actually, as a page that uses a master shouldn't have this tag), that "asp" is an
    > unrecognised tag prefix or device filter, and that the element "p" must be included
    > within a parent element.
    >
    > All of these errors seem to come from the fact that the .aspx didn't have a full HTML
    > like a normal page, it only had the Content control. Surely VWD should know about this.
    > Any ideas why I got the errors?
    >
    > Ta ra
    >
    > --
    > Alan Silver
    > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
    Juan T. Llibre, Nov 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Ritchie

    Best overall reporting package?

    Paul Ritchie, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,775
    dotnetdev18
    Oct 27, 2008
  2. Mike Moore [MSFT]

    RE: 'Overall' Editing DataGrids

    Mike Moore [MSFT], Nov 11, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    490
    Mike Moore [MSFT]
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Electrified Research
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,457
    =?Utf-8?B?Q293Ym95IChHcmVnb3J5IEEuIEJlYW1lcikgLSBN
    Oct 11, 2005
  4. Doug McCann
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,001
    William Brogden
    Aug 5, 2004
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    572
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page