ASP.NET 2.0 "Website" vs. 1.1 "Web Application"

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Kobee, Jun 26, 2006.

  1. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    Hi,

    I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.

    With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.

    There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.

    Thanks.
    Kobee, Jun 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kobee,
    Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    1.1 Web project.
    Peter

    --
    Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog:
    http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




    "Kobee" wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    >
    > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    >
    > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Jun 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    that was painful enough as it is.

    Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?



    Peter wrote:
    > Kobee,
    > Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    > provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    > 1.1 Web project.
    > Peter
    >
    > --
    > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > UnBlog:
    > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Kobee" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    > > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > >
    > > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > >
    > > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    Kobee, Jun 26, 2006
    #3
  4. I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.

    Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.

    The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application" paradigm,
    but on having the flexibility to control the build process.

    Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more control
    than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!

    :)



    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ===================================
    "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    > with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    > that was painful enough as it is.
    >
    > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    >
    >
    >
    > Peter wrote:
    >> Kobee,
    >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    >> 1.1 Web project.
    >> Peter
    >>
    >> --
    >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    >> UnBlog:
    >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Kobee" wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hi,
    >> >
    >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    >> >
    >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    >> >
    >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    >> >
    >> > Thanks.
    >> >
    >> >

    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    another directory?

    Thanks.

    Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    >
    > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    >
    > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application" paradigm,
    > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    >
    > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more control
    > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    >
    > :)
    >
    >
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > ===================================
    > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > >
    > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Peter wrote:
    > >> Kobee,
    > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > >> Peter
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > >> UnBlog:
    > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Hi,
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directoryto
    > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > >> >
    > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > >> >
    > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks.
    > >> >
    > >> >

    > >
    Kobee, Jun 26, 2006
    #5
  6. re:
    > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > how would I go about referencing a control created in another directory?


    Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx

    Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx





    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ===================================
    "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    another directory?

    Thanks.

    Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    >
    > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    >
    > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application" paradigm,
    > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    >
    > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more control
    > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    >
    > :)
    >
    >
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > ===================================
    > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > >
    > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Peter wrote:
    > >> Kobee,
    > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > >> Peter
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > >> UnBlog:
    > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Hi,
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > >> >
    > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > >> >
    > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks.
    > >> >
    > >> >

    > >
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    Thanks for the links. Interesting...

    Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.

    Cheers.

    Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > re:
    > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another directory?

    >
    > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    >
    > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > ===================================
    > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > another directory?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > >
    > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > >
    > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application" paradigm,
    > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > >
    > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more control
    > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > >
    > > :)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > ===================================
    > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > >
    > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Peter wrote:
    > > >> Kobee,
    > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in.This
    > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > >> Peter
    > > >>
    > > >> --
    > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > >> UnBlog:
    > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> > Hi,
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Thanks.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >
    Kobee, Jun 26, 2006
    #7
  8. So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in the bin
    folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the app.

    I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning more
    and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).

    Peter

    --
    Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog:
    http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




    "Kobee" wrote:

    > Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    >
    > Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > re:
    > > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another directory?

    > >
    > > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > >
    > > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > ===================================
    > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > > another directory?
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > > >
    > > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > > >
    > > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application" paradigm,
    > > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > > >
    > > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more control
    > > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > > >
    > > > :)
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > ===================================
    > > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to. Unfortunately
    > > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and retrofit
    > > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0 and
    > > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > > >
    > > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Peter wrote:
    > > > >> Kobee,
    > > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project add-in. This
    > > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the original ASP.NET
    > > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > > >> Peter
    > > > >>
    > > > >> --
    > > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > >> UnBlog:
    > > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > >>
    > > > >>
    > > > >>
    > > > >>
    > > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > >>
    > > > >> > Hi,
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project vs. the
    > > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is with
    > > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a directory to
    > > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace ("using
    > > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add a
    > > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name something like
    > > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find out how
    > > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it doesn't
    > > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >
    > > > >

    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Jun 26, 2006
    #8
  9. might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.

    --
    ________________________
    Warm regards,
    Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

    [Shameless Author plug]
    Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    -------------------------------------------------------


    "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in the bin
    > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the
    > app.
    >
    > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > more
    > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > --
    > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > UnBlog:
    > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Kobee" wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    >>
    >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>
    >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    >> > re:
    >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    >> > > directory?
    >> >
    >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    >> >
    >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    >> > ===================================
    >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    >> > another directory?
    >> >
    >> > Thanks.
    >> >
    >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    >> > >
    >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    >> > >
    >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    >> > > paradigm,
    >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    >> > >
    >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    >> > > control
    >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    >> > >
    >> > > :)
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    >> > > ===================================
    >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    >> > > news:...
    >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    >> > > >Unfortunately
    >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    >> > > > retrofit
    >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0
    >> > > > and
    >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    >> > > >
    >> > > >
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Peter wrote:
    >> > > >> Kobee,
    >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    >> > > >> add-in. This
    >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    >> > > >> Peter
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >> --
    >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    >> > > >> UnBlog:
    >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    >> > > >>
    >> > > >> > Hi,
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    >> > > >> > vs. the
    >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    >> > > >> > with
    >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    >> > > >> > directory to
    >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    >> > > >> > ("using
    >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add
    >> > > >> > a
    >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    >> > > >> > something like
    >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    >> > > >> > out how
    >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    >> > > >> > doesn't
    >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >> > Thanks.
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >> >
    >> > > >

    >>
    >>
    Alvin Bruney [MVP], Jun 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Alvin, I'll try.
    1) it "feels" better- especially if you come from ASP.NET 1.1 which many
    people do.
    2) Having a single named Assembly could make it easier to update a site.
    3) I don't like the "stub" aspx files that "web site" with precompiled
    creates, nor do I like the colleciton of strangely named assemblies.
    4) may be easier to handle user Controls - they work like in ASP.NET 1.1

    Again, its personal preference and I use both app types - but that's a short
    list for starters.
    Peter


    --
    Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog:
    http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




    "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" wrote:

    > might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    > is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    > organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.
    >
    > --
    > ________________________
    > Warm regards,
    > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    >
    > [Shameless Author plug]
    > Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    > The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    > www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    > -------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in the bin
    > > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the
    > > app.
    > >
    > > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > > more
    > > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > --
    > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > UnBlog:
    > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    > >>
    > >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers.
    > >>
    > >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > >> > re:
    > >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    > >> > > directory?
    > >> >
    > >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > >> >
    > >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > >> > ===================================
    > >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > >> > another directory?
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks.
    > >> >
    > >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    > >> > > paradigm,
    > >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    > >> > > control
    > >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > >> > >
    > >> > > :)
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > >> > > ===================================
    > >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > >> > > news:...
    > >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    > >> > > >Unfortunately
    > >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    > >> > > > retrofit
    > >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0
    > >> > > > and
    > >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Peter wrote:
    > >> > > >> Kobee,
    > >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    > >> > > >> add-in. This
    > >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    > >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    > >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > >> > > >> Peter
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> --
    > >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > >> > > >> UnBlog:
    > >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> > Hi,
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    > >> > > >> > vs. the
    > >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    > >> > > >> > with
    > >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    > >> > > >> > directory to
    > >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    > >> > > >> > ("using
    > >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add
    > >> > > >> > a
    > >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    > >> > > >> > something like
    > >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    > >> > > >> > out how
    > >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    > >> > > >> > doesn't
    > >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > Thanks.
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Jun 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    Can you use the precompile exe with the web application project? I've
    used this with asp.net 2.0 website projects, and it's pretty slick.


    Peter wrote:
    > Alvin, I'll try.
    > 1) it "feels" better- especially if you come from ASP.NET 1.1 which many
    > people do.
    > 2) Having a single named Assembly could make it easier to update a site.
    > 3) I don't like the "stub" aspx files that "web site" with precompiled
    > creates, nor do I like the colleciton of strangely named assemblies.
    > 4) may be easier to handle user Controls - they work like in ASP.NET 1.1
    >
    > Again, its personal preference and I use both app types - but that's a short
    > list for starters.
    > Peter
    >
    >
    > --
    > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > UnBlog:
    > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" wrote:
    >
    > > might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    > > is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    > > organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.
    > >
    > > --
    > > ________________________
    > > Warm regards,
    > > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    > >
    > > [Shameless Author plug]
    > > Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    > > The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    > > www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    > > -------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > >
    > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in thebin
    > > > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the
    > > > app.
    > > >
    > > > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > > > more
    > > > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > > > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > UnBlog:
    > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    > > >>
    > > >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > > >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    > > >>
    > > >> Cheers.
    > > >>
    > > >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > >> > re:
    > > >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    > > >> > > directory?
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > > >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > > >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > >> > ===================================
    > > >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > >> > news:...
    > > >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > > >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > > >> > another directory?
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Thanks.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax init.
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    > > >> > > paradigm,
    > > >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    > > >> > > control
    > > >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > :)
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > >> > > ===================================
    > > >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > >> > > news:...
    > > >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    > > >> > > >Unfortunately
    > > >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    > > >> > > > retrofit
    > > >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0
    > > >> > > > and
    > > >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > > Peter wrote:
    > > >> > > >> Kobee,
    > > >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    > > >> > > >> add-in. This
    > > >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    > > >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    > > >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > >> > > >> Peter
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >> --
    > > >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > >> > > >> UnBlog:
    > > >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > >> > > >>
    > > >> > > >> > Hi,
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    > > >> > > >> > vs. the
    > > >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    > > >> > > >> > with
    > > >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    > > >> > > >> > directory to
    > > >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    > > >> > > >> > ("using
    > > >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add
    > > >> > > >> > a
    > > >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    > > >> > > >> > something like
    > > >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    > > >> > > >> > out how
    > > >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    > > >> > > >> > doesn't
    > > >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >> > Thanks.
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >> >
    > > >> > > >
    > > >>
    > > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
    Kobee, Jun 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Kobee,
    That's the whole point! A Web Application Project by it's very nature+ IS
    already "precompiled".
    You have a single assembly that goes in the /bin folder.

    Peter

    --
    Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog:
    http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




    "Kobee" wrote:

    > Can you use the precompile exe with the web application project? I've
    > used this with asp.net 2.0 website projects, and it's pretty slick.
    >
    >
    > Peter wrote:
    > > Alvin, I'll try.
    > > 1) it "feels" better- especially if you come from ASP.NET 1.1 which many
    > > people do.
    > > 2) Having a single named Assembly could make it easier to update a site.
    > > 3) I don't like the "stub" aspx files that "web site" with precompiled
    > > creates, nor do I like the colleciton of strangely named assemblies.
    > > 4) may be easier to handle user Controls - they work like in ASP.NET 1.1
    > >
    > > Again, its personal preference and I use both app types - but that's a short
    > > list for starters.
    > > Peter
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > UnBlog:
    > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" wrote:
    > >
    > > > might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    > > > is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    > > > organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > ________________________
    > > > Warm regards,
    > > > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    > > >
    > > > [Shameless Author plug]
    > > > Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    > > > The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    > > > www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    > > > -------------------------------------------------------
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in the bin
    > > > > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the
    > > > > app.
    > > > >
    > > > > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > > > > more
    > > > > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > > > > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    > > > >
    > > > > Peter
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > UnBlog:
    > > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > > > >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Cheers.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > >> > re:
    > > > >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > > >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    > > > >> > > directory?
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > > > >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > > > >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > >> > ===================================
    > > > >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> > news:...
    > > > >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > > > >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > > > >> > another directory?
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > > >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > > >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > > >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    > > > >> > > paradigm,
    > > > >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    > > > >> > > control
    > > > >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > > :)
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > >
    > > > >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > >> > > ===================================
    > > > >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> > > news:...
    > > > >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    > > > >> > > >Unfortunately
    > > > >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    > > > >> > > > retrofit
    > > > >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0
    > > > >> > > > and
    > > > >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > > >> > > >
    > > > >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > > >> > > >
    > > > >> > > >
    > > > >> > > >
    > > > >> > > > Peter wrote:
    > > > >> > > >> Kobee,
    > > > >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    > > > >> > > >> add-in. This
    > > > >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    > > > >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    > > > >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > > >> > > >> Peter
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >> --
    > > > >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > >> > > >> UnBlog:
    > > > >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > >> > > >>
    > > > >> > > >> > Hi,
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    > > > >> > > >> > vs. the
    > > > >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    > > > >> > > >> > with
    > > > >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    > > > >> > > >> > directory to
    > > > >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > > >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    > > > >> > > >> > ("using
    > > > >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add
    > > > >> > > >> > a
    > > > >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    > > > >> > > >> > something like
    > > > >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    > > > >> > > >> > out how
    > > > >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    > > > >> > > >> > doesn't
    > > > >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > >> > > >
    > > > >>
    > > > >>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Jun 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Kobee

    Kobee Guest

    Thanks Peter,

    That makes sense now that I think about it. So the 2.0 precompiler
    basically does what the old 1.1 framework did right out of the box.
    Seems almost like a step backwards to go to "website" from "web
    application". Can't help but get the feeling that MS created the
    website project to "dumb down" creating a web app and make it more
    accessible.


    Peter wrote:
    > Kobee,
    > That's the whole point! A Web Application Project by it's very nature+ IS
    > already "precompiled".
    > You have a single assembly that goes in the /bin folder.
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > --
    > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > UnBlog:
    > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Kobee" wrote:
    >
    > > Can you use the precompile exe with the web application project? I've
    > > used this with asp.net 2.0 website projects, and it's pretty slick.
    > >
    > >
    > > Peter wrote:
    > > > Alvin, I'll try.
    > > > 1) it "feels" better- especially if you come from ASP.NET 1.1 which many
    > > > people do.
    > > > 2) Having a single named Assembly could make it easier to update a site.
    > > > 3) I don't like the "stub" aspx files that "web site" with precompiled
    > > > creates, nor do I like the colleciton of strangely named assemblies.
    > > > 4) may be easier to handle user Controls - they work like in ASP.NET 1.1
    > > >
    > > > Again, its personal preference and I use both app types - but that's a short
    > > > list for starters.
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > UnBlog:
    > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    > > > > is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    > > > > organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > ________________________
    > > > > Warm regards,
    > > > > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    > > > >
    > > > > [Shameless Author plug]
    > > > > Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    > > > > The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    > > > > www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:...
    > > > > > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is inthe bin
    > > > > > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywherein the
    > > > > > app.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > > > > > more
    > > > > > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > > > > > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Peter
    > > > > >
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > > UnBlog:
    > > > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > > > > >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> Cheers.
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > > >> > re:
    > > > > >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > > > >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    > > > > >> > > directory?
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > > > > >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > > > > >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > > >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > > >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > > >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > > >> > ===================================
    > > > > >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > > >> > news:...
    > > > > >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > > > > >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > > > > >> > another directory?
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > > >> >
    > > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > > >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > > > >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > > > >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > > > >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    > > > > >> > > paradigm,
    > > > > >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    > > > > >> > > control
    > > > > >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > > :)
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > >
    > > > > >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > > >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > > >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > > >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > > >> > > ===================================
    > > > > >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > > >> > > news:...
    > > > > >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    > > > > >> > > >Unfortunately
    > > > > >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    > > > > >> > > > retrofit
    > > > > >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1to 2.0
    > > > > >> > > > and
    > > > > >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > >> > > > Peter wrote:
    > > > > >> > > >> Kobee,
    > > > > >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    > > > > >> > > >> add-in. This
    > > > > >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    > > > > >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    > > > > >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > > > >> > > >> Peter
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >> --
    > > > > >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > >> > > >> UnBlog:
    > > > > >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > >> > > >> > Hi,
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    > > > > >> > > >> > vs. the
    > > > > >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    > > > > >> > > >> > with
    > > > > >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    > > > > >> > > >> > directory to
    > > > > >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > > > >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    > > > > >> > > >> > ("using
    > > > > >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory,then add
    > > > > >> > > >> > a
    > > > > >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    > > > > >> > > >> > something like
    > > > > >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    > > > > >> > > >> > out how
    > > > > >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    > > > > >> > > >> > doesn't
    > > > > >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >>
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >

    > >
    > >
    Kobee, Jun 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Whatever the thinking was, they've now made up the difference by allowing us
    to choose which model we want to use. The Latin phrase "De gustibus non
    disputandum est" (Regarding choice, there is no dispute) applies.
    Peter

    --
    Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog:
    http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




    "Kobee" wrote:

    > Thanks Peter,
    >
    > That makes sense now that I think about it. So the 2.0 precompiler
    > basically does what the old 1.1 framework did right out of the box.
    > Seems almost like a step backwards to go to "website" from "web
    > application". Can't help but get the feeling that MS created the
    > website project to "dumb down" creating a web app and make it more
    > accessible.
    >
    >
    > Peter wrote:
    > > Kobee,
    > > That's the whole point! A Web Application Project by it's very nature+ IS
    > > already "precompiled".
    > > You have a single assembly that goes in the /bin folder.
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > --
    > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > UnBlog:
    > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > >
    > > > Can you use the precompile exe with the web application project? I've
    > > > used this with asp.net 2.0 website projects, and it's pretty slick.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Peter wrote:
    > > > > Alvin, I'll try.
    > > > > 1) it "feels" better- especially if you come from ASP.NET 1.1 which many
    > > > > people do.
    > > > > 2) Having a single named Assembly could make it easier to update a site.
    > > > > 3) I don't like the "stub" aspx files that "web site" with precompiled
    > > > > creates, nor do I like the colleciton of strangely named assemblies.
    > > > > 4) may be easier to handle user Controls - they work like in ASP.NET 1.1
    > > > >
    > > > > Again, its personal preference and I use both app types - but that's a short
    > > > > list for starters.
    > > > > Peter
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > UnBlog:
    > > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > might you elaborate a bit on why you think WAP is better? reason for asking
    > > > > > is that i am responsible for driving patterns and practices in my
    > > > > > organization and i am just thru penning a white paper on the migration path.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > ________________________
    > > > > > Warm regards,
    > > > > > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    > > > > >
    > > > > > [Shameless Author plug]
    > > > > > Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
    > > > > > The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
    > > > > > www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
    > > > > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
    > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:...
    > > > > > > So long as the compiled codebehind for the ASCX userControl is in the bin
    > > > > > > folder, the actual ASCX file should be able to be placed anywhere in the
    > > > > > > app.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I use both WebSite and Web Application Projects, but I'm really leaning
    > > > > > > more
    > > > > > > and more toward the WAP. Also, it is not that hard to convert - see Rick
    > > > > > > Strahl's link that was provided (it could be in another of his posts).
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Peter
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > --
    > > > > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > > > UnBlog:
    > > > > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >> Thanks for the links. Interesting...
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> Looks like the 1.1 style architecture of building pages with
    > > > > > >> dynamically loaded user-controls is not the way to go anymore.
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> Cheers.
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > > > >> > re:
    > > > > > >> > > to go back to original question, with the 2.0 Web Site project,
    > > > > > >> > > how would I go about referencing a control created in another
    > > > > > >> > > directory?
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > Scott Guthrie has a solution :
    > > > > > >> > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > Rick Strahl has the solution, too :
    > > > > > >> > http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/3016.aspx
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > > > >> > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > > > >> > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > > > >> > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > > > >> > ===================================
    > > > > > >> > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > >> > news:...
    > > > > > >> > OK, I see your point. But to go back to original question, with the 2.0
    > > > > > >> > Web Site project, how would I go about referencing a control created in
    > > > > > >> > another directory?
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > Juan T. Llibre wrote:
    > > > > > >> > > I think the Dev Team was responding to earlier feedback,
    > > > > > >> > > in which developers requested a more granular approach,
    > > > > > >> > > i.e., not having a single assembly with the whole ball of wax in it.
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > > Then, after the product launched, developers requested more control
    > > > > > >> > > over the number and naming of assemblies, and the WAP was created.
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > > The whole thing is not so much on the "website vs. application"
    > > > > > >> > > paradigm,
    > > > > > >> > > but on having the flexibility to control the build process.
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > > Think of it this way : now you can do it either way, with way more
    > > > > > >> > > control
    > > > > > >> > > than you ever had over the way your apps are compiled and deployed!
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > > :)
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > >
    > > > > > >> > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    > > > > > >> > > aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    > > > > > >> > > asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    > > > > > >> > > foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    > > > > > >> > > ===================================
    > > > > > >> > > "Kobee" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > >> > > news:...
    > > > > > >> > > >I was reading about that - that seems to be the way to.
    > > > > > >> > > >Unfortunately
    > > > > > >> > > > with my current project I've already come too far to try and
    > > > > > >> > > > retrofit
    > > > > > >> > > > the web app model into it. I upraded this project from 1.1 to 2.0
    > > > > > >> > > > and
    > > > > > >> > > > that was painful enough as it is.
    > > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > > >> > > > Is it just me, or is this whole "Web Site" idea from MS a bad idea?
    > > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > > >> > > > Peter wrote:
    > > > > > >> > > >> Kobee,
    > > > > > >> > > >> Suggest you download and install the Web Application Project
    > > > > > >> > > >> add-in. This
    > > > > > >> > > >> provides behaviors and semantics that are much more like the
    > > > > > >> > > >> original ASP.NET
    > > > > > >> > > >> 1.1 Web project.
    > > > > > >> > > >> Peter
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >> --
    > > > > > >> > > >> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
    > > > > > >> > > >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    > > > > > >> > > >> UnBlog:
    > > > > > >> > > >> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >> "Kobee" wrote:
    > > > > > >> > > >>
    > > > > > >> > > >> > Hi,
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >> > I'm having a few issues adapting to new 2.0 "website" project
    > > > > > >> > > >> > vs. the
    > > > > > >> > > >> > old 1.1 "web application". One of the major issues I'm having is
    > > > > > >> > > >> > with
    > > > > > >> > > >> > the notion of namespaces. Using the old way, I could add a
    > > > > > >> > > >> > directory to
    > > > > > >> > > >> > my project (say, "Controls"), then add a user control to that
    > > > > > >> > > >> > directory. From an .aspx I could then import the namespace
    > > > > > >> > > >> > ("using
    > > > > > >> > > >> > [projectname].Controls";), and then reference that control.
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >> > With the 2.0 way of doing things, if I add a directory, then add
    > > > > > >> > > >> > a
    > > > > > >> > > >> > control to that directory the code behind class is name
    > > > > > >> > > >> > something like
    > > > > > >> > > >> > "Controls_ucControlName", and I can't for the life of me find
    > > > > > >> > > >> > out how
    > > > > > >> > > >> > to reference this control outside of that directory, and it
    > > > > > >> > > >> > doesn't
    > > > > > >> > > >> > appear in the Intellisense dropdown or the Object Browser.
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >> > There must be an obvious way to do this which is lost on me.
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks.
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >> >
    > > > > > >> > > >
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Jun 30, 2006
    #14
    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. James Tsao
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    354
    bruce barker
    Oct 29, 2004
  2. EdHelp
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
    EdHelp
    Oct 18, 2006
  3. ton
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    971
    Mr. Arnold
    Feb 4, 2010
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,743
  5. Pranab
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    105
    Bob Barrows [MVP]
    Mar 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page