Asp.net 2.0 and Dreamweaver

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by tshad, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. tshad

    tshad Guest

    Can you use Dreamweaver and VS.Net together now?

    I have a site that was built with DW code inside (therefore you could not
    use VS.Net 2003 with it).

    Is this still the case?

    Apparently, you can use code inside with the new version version of VS, but
    do you have to run the site as a total site or can you use both side by
    side.

    I would like to convert my site to asp 2.0 and use VS with it, but I don't
    want to do that if there is going to be problem using VS with all the pages
    I used DW to create.

    Thanks,

    Tom
     
    tshad, Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tshad

    Darren Kopp Guest

    Are you talking about the code as inline code rather than code in a
    code behind? I use VS.Net 2003 with dreamweaver (dreamweaver for
    design stuff), but I will always jump back to VS for adding controls to
    the page and such (since it creates the stuff i need automatically in
    the code behind).

    Just go to a aspx file in the solution explorer, right click, open
    with, then add the dreamweaver executable to the list (you can make it
    default, but messes with code behind or resx, something).

    If you could clarify what you mean by "DW code inside" that would help.

    Regards,
    Darren Kopp
    http://blog.secudocs.com/
     
    Darren Kopp, Feb 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tshad

    tshad Guest

    "Darren Kopp" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Are you talking about the code as inline code rather than code in a
    > code behind? I use VS.Net 2003 with dreamweaver (dreamweaver for
    > design stuff), but I will always jump back to VS for adding controls to
    > the page and such (since it creates the stuff i need automatically in
    > the code behind).
    >
    > Just go to a aspx file in the solution explorer, right click, open
    > with, then add the dreamweaver executable to the list (you can make it
    > default, but messes with code behind or resx, something).
    >
    > If you could clarify what you mean by "DW code inside" that would help.


    When I talk about code-inside, I am talking about one page for both code and
    design as opposed to code behind. This is also the direction MS is taking
    in VS 2005. You now have 3 models, apparently.

    In VS2003, you had to use Code behind, so that if you used a single page, it
    wouldn't work in VS 2003.

    I have a site with all my pages single .aspx pages. There are no .aspx.vb
    (or aspx.cs).

    Thanks,

    Tom
    >
    > Regards,
    > Darren Kopp
    > http://blog.secudocs.com/
    >
     
    tshad, Feb 17, 2006
    #3
  4. tshad

    Darren Kopp Guest

    Darren Kopp, Feb 17, 2006
    #4
  5. tshad

    Darren Kopp Guest

    Then click the "The ASP.NET 2.0 Coding Model" link... tried to put the
    anchor, but it doesn't jump there automatically.

    -Darren
     
    Darren Kopp, Feb 17, 2006
    #5
  6. tshad

    tshad Guest

    "Darren Kopp" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yep, it does. Check out
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...o2.asp?frame=true#migratefromaspnetto2_topic6.


    This is good news.

    But I believe their explanation is totally wrong.

    I have had the debate (code-inside or Code-inline vs Code-Behind) with many
    people in the past and still prefer the one page approach. Apparently, so
    does MS since it is now the default model (according to this article). I
    have even been told that PROFESSIONAL programmers use code behind, as if
    there were no professional programmers before VS.

    The error in the article is comparing asp.net code-inside(inline) with asp.
    This is absolutely incorrect.

    *************************************************************************************************
    In ASP.NET 1.x, you could develop an ASP.NET page in one of two ways. First,
    you could put your code directly inline with your ASP.NET tags. The code
    inline model is very similar to the coding model that was prevalent with
    classical ASP and other scripting languages. However, the code inline model
    has several problems, such as the intermixing of code and HTML. ASP.NET 1.0
    introduced the code-behind model as a replacement. The code-behind model
    used an external class to house the code, while the ASPX page contained the
    HTML and ASP.NET tags. The code-behind model thus successfully separated
    code from content; however, it created some interesting inheritance issues
    and forced the developer to keep track of two files for each Web page.

    Although ASP.NET 2.0 still supports both of these models, several
    significant changes have been made.
    ********************************************************************************************************

    You don't mix the html code and scripting code as you do in asp. You have
    complete separation as you do in the Code-Behind. The separation happens by
    putting the Script at the top of the page and the HTML at the bottom. (or
    you could reverse this, I suppose).

    Code Inline
    *******************************************************************************************************************
    The code inline model is now the default model for Visual Studio 2005. Any
    code you add to the page will automatically be added to a <script> block
    within the ASPX file instead of to a code-behind class. However, Visual
    Studio 2005 still displays the code in the code view. In other words, you
    can keep using Visual Studio like you always have, except that code will be
    placed directly in the ASPX page instead of a separate class.
    ******************************************************************************************************************

    As they say here (and as I have always said), inline still keeps the
    separation. But according to this, VS will create the Script block for
    you - which is fine.

    This always made more sense than that the 2 file method.

    What I am curious about, is whether it will recognise old code not written
    in VS and handle it correctly, or is there some hidden code somewhere that
    MS uses to navigate the page and site.

    I would like to just start using VS2005 on my current site and bring it up
    to 2.0, without having to rewrite all my pages to work with the new models
    set up by MS. It sounds like this is the case, unless there is some gotcha
    that you won't find out about until you try it.

    Thanks,

    Tom

    > I believe the inline code has intellisense too :D
    >
    > Happy .NETing,
    > Darren Kopp
    > http://blog.secudocs.com
    >
     
    tshad, Feb 17, 2006
    #6
  7. tshad

    Darren Kopp Guest

    Well, technically you don't have to re-write the code. There are,
    however, changes between 2.0 and 1.1, so you may have to rewrite some
    code. I have not used the inline approach, i have used the code behind
    model, so I am not sure if what i say next will apply. But I had some
    1.1 code that i brought into a 2.0 project and tried to compile but
    with errors because some of the coding techniques i used were now
    obsolete, and the compiler recommended what to do instead.

    So, the 1.1 to 2.0 conversion isn't guaranteed to not have any code
    rewriting, but for non-obsolete code it should work fine with VS2005.
    I know there is a conversion wizard that will help you convert all of
    the existing code, but I believe that is for project based applications
    with code-behind, but it may apply to inline files as well, I have not
    tried.

    Also, I think the part where it talks about the inserting of script
    block and that is this: the code automatically goes into the script
    block, but i believe there are 2 different views for looking at the
    aspx source. One of them is HTML view which shows all of the html and
    the script blocks, and then i think there is a code view, which shows
    only the <script> blocks, but as i have not tried it i cannot guarantee
    that's how it is.

    As for the comparison to ASP, I think that is correct, depending on how
    you set up your ASP page. Similar to the <script> blocks, a developer
    could have just encapsulated all of the code between <% %> blocks at
    the beginning of the page, and then called the sub routines and
    functions throughout the page. This lead to "spaghetti code", but I
    think in some aspects that still exists in .NET, even with a
    code-behind model.

    All in all i guess it all comes down to preference, and I guess that is
    why Microsoft supports both methods, and I personally can see
    advantages within each method (I admit, sometimes I get bothered having
    to open the code-behind for the page).

    Regards,
    Darren Kopp
     
    Darren Kopp, Feb 17, 2006
    #7
  8. tshad

    tshad Guest

    "Darren Kopp" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, technically you don't have to re-write the code. There are,
    > however, changes between 2.0 and 1.1, so you may have to rewrite some
    > code. I have not used the inline approach, i have used the code behind
    > model, so I am not sure if what i say next will apply. But I had some
    > 1.1 code that i brought into a 2.0 project and tried to compile but
    > with errors because some of the coding techniques i used were now
    > obsolete, and the compiler recommended what to do instead.
    >

    I have heard that also.
    I will have to do extensive testing before I attempt it.

    > So, the 1.1 to 2.0 conversion isn't guaranteed to not have any code
    > rewriting, but for non-obsolete code it should work fine with VS2005.
    > I know there is a conversion wizard that will help you convert all of
    > the existing code, but I believe that is for project based applications
    > with code-behind, but it may apply to inline files as well, I have not
    > tried.
    >
    > Also, I think the part where it talks about the inserting of script
    > block and that is this: the code automatically goes into the script
    > block, but i believe there are 2 different views for looking at the
    > aspx source. One of them is HTML view which shows all of the html and
    > the script blocks, and then i think there is a code view, which shows
    > only the <script> blocks, but as i have not tried it i cannot guarantee
    > that's how it is.
    >

    I think what it does is exactly how I write my pages.

    It knows where the script block is so it can logically separate the HTML
    from the Script.

    Here is how I write a Code inside page:
    ***************************************************************************
    <%@ Page Language="VB" trace="false" debug="true" ContentType="text/html"
    ResponseEncoding="iso-8859-1" %>
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    <%@ Import Namespace="System.Data" %>
    <%@ Import Namespace="System.Data.SqlClient" %>
    <%@ Import Namespace="MyFunctions" %>
    <script runat="server">
    Sub Page_Load(s as Object, e as EventArgs)
    if not IsPostBack then
    call FillDrops()
    end if
    end sub

    Sub FillDrops()
    Dim myDbObject as new DbObject()
    Dim DBReader As SqlDataReader

    Dim parameters As SqlParameter () = { _
    New SqlParameter("@Users",SqlDbType.BigInt) }

    parameters(0).value = Session("User1")

    dbReader = myDbObject.RunProcedure("GetCountries", parameters)
    exit sub
    Country.DataSource=dbReader
    Country.DataTextField= "CountryName"
    Country.DataValueField="CountryCode"
    Country.databind()
    Country.Items.Insert(0, "Select Country")
    end Sub
    </script>
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>:: Staffing Workshop ::</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    <link href="../../final-site/option2/css/staffing.css" rel="stylesheet"
    type="text/css">

    <style type="text/css">
    <!--
    body {
    margin-top: 5px;
    }
    ..style5 {font-size: 9px}
    ..style7 {
    color: #FFFFFF;
    font-weight: bold;
    }
    -->
    </style>
    </head>

    <body id="myBody" runat="server">
    <form runat="server">
    <table width="851" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
    <tr>
    <td>_
    <asp:DropDownList ID="Country" runat="server" /> </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    </form>
    </body>
    </html>
    ****************************************************************************
    *

    Complete separation. I absolutely do not mix my script code with my HTML
    code.

    > As for the comparison to ASP, I think that is correct, depending on how
    > you set up your ASP page. Similar to the <script> blocks, a developer
    > could have just encapsulated all of the code between <% %> blocks at
    > the beginning of the page, and then called the sub routines and
    > functions throughout the page. This lead to "spaghetti code", but I
    > think in some aspects that still exists in .NET, even with a
    > code-behind model.


    Actually, the only place I use the <% %> is in datagrids or some place where
    I need to get data from a database container such as when I Databind to a
    datagrid and need to use a template column in place of a BoundColumn, which
    I find much more flexible and easier to manipulate. But this would be the
    same in the Code Behind model.

    *************************************************************************
    <asp:DataGrid
    Visible=true
    AllowSorting="false"
    AutoGenerateColumns="false"
    CellPadding="0"
    CellSpacing="0"
    ID="DataGrid1"
    runat="server"
    ShowFooter="false"
    ShowHeader="true"
    GridLines="Both"
    Width="650px" style="border-collapse:separate">
    <alternatingitemstyle BackColor="#FFFFFF"/>
    <itemstyle BackColor="#E9E9E9" ForeColor="#0000FF"/>
    <headerstyle CssClass="jay" BackColor="#000000" ForeColor="#FFFFFF"
    Font-Bold="true" />
    <pagerstyle BackColor="white" />
    <columns>
    <asp:TemplateColumn Visible="true" HeaderText="Name"
    ItemStyle-Font-Bold="true"
    ItemStyle-Width="125px" HeaderStyle-Width="125px"
    ItemStyle-VerticalAlign="middle">
    <itemtemplate>
    <asp:LinkButton ID="FullName" Text='<%#
    Container.DataItem("FullName")%>' OnClick="GetApplicantDetails_Click"
    runat="server"/>
    </itemtemplate>
    </asp:TemplateColumn>
    </columns>
    </asp:DataGrid>
    ************************************************************************
    >
    > All in all i guess it all comes down to preference, and I guess that is
    > why Microsoft supports both methods, and I personally can see
    > advantages within each method (I admit, sometimes I get bothered having
    > to open the code-behind for the page).
    >


    The interesting thing is that it is not just what MS supports, but is what
    it now defaults to, apparently.

    Thanks,

    Tom
    > Regards,
    > Darren Kopp
    >
     
    tshad, Feb 18, 2006
    #8
    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. rj

    ASP.NET\DreamWeaver

    rj, Aug 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    736
    John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\)
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
    Guest
    Nov 18, 2004
  3. Shun
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,118
    Paul Henderson
    Jan 17, 2006
  4. Jason
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    8,643
    Toby Inkster
    Jan 9, 2005
  5. Rishi Boparai

    Dreamweaver templates and ASP.net 2

    Rishi Boparai, May 5, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    698
Loading...

Share This Page