migration from asp: better client or server-side code?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Ben, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. Ben

    Ben Guest

    Hi,

    I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and video stuffs
    for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The whole day
    is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click in a cel
    representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and finally click on
    the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.

    My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All onclick
    events are executed on client-side.
    Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use that
    client-side code?

    Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side script and
    minimum client-side? If so, is there no danger to overload the server,
    instead of sharing the execution of the application between client and
    server?

    Thanks for help
    Ben
     
    Ben, Mar 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ben

    Guest

    That depends on what your client side scripts are doing.
    If it is buissnies logic then it should defenitly go to the server
    code. And there are several reasons for that. For example: you don't
    want someone to steal your code do you? And javascript is tricky as
    anyone can disable it and then your application will not work.

    Javascript should be used for client side validation (which must have
    it's server-side equivalent) and for UI. But never for buissnies logic!
     
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hello ben,

    b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and video
    b> stuffs
    b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The
    b> whole day
    b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click in a
    b> cel
    b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and finally
    b> click on
    b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All
    b> onclick
    b> events are executed on client-side.
    b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use that
    b> client-side code?

    Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change it

    b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    b> script and minimum client-side?

    It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much compatibility with
    other web browsers do you need.
    If everything works good now you haven't to change this for asp.net, except
    where server-side code is really need

    b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    b> between client and server?

    yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty well)

    ---
    WBR,
    Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

    "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
    cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
     
    Michael Nemtsev, Mar 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Ben

    Bob Guest

    Thanks for replying.
    When creating an new application, what do you suggest? Using as much as
    possible server-side code or finding a balance between cleint and server?
    And how to determine that balance?
    Ben
    "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello ben,
    >
    > b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and video
    > b> stuffs
    > b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    > b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The
    > b> whole day
    > b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click in a
    > b> cel
    > b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and finally
    > b> click on
    > b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    > b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All
    > b> onclick
    > b> events are executed on client-side.
    > b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use that
    > b> client-side code?
    >
    > Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change it
    >
    > b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    > b> script and minimum client-side?
    >
    > It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much compatibility

    with
    > other web browsers do you need.
    > If everything works good now you haven't to change this for asp.net,

    except
    > where server-side code is really need
    >
    > b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    > b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    > b> between client and server?
    >
    > yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty

    well)
    >
    > ---
    > WBR,
    > Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >
    > "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do

    not
    > cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >
    >
     
    Bob, Mar 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Ben

    Guest

    Like I said it depends on what you need.

    I would tend to stick to server side as much as possible.
    Don't get me wrong I love javascript. But anybody can disable it, steal
    your code or find a sceurty hole. And with javascript you can't be
    shure it will work in every browser...
     
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Hello Bob,

    Balance is determined with the size of round-trips to the server and back.
    For example if you need to fill listbox with values from another listbox
    you need to do it with JavaScript, to avoid postbacks for each item transfer
    between listbox.
    Use such tools like HTTPWatch, Fidler to look at your VIEWSTATE and how much
    postbacks in your page interactions to diminish them with JavaScripts (where
    it posible only)

    BTW, I recomend to apply AJAX to your new projects. It's drastically diminish
    size of data transfered between client and server

    B> Thanks for replying.
    B> When creating an new application, what do you suggest? Using as much
    B> as
    B> possible server-side code or finding a balance between cleint and
    B> server?
    B> And how to determine that balance?
    B> Ben
    B> "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    B> news:...
    >> Hello ben,
    >>
    >> b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and
    >> video
    >> b> stuffs
    >> b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    >> b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The
    >> b> whole day
    >> b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click
    >> in a
    >> b> cel
    >> b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and
    >> finally
    >> b> click on
    >> b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    >> b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All
    >> b> onclick
    >> b> events are executed on client-side.
    >> b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use
    >> that
    >> b> client-side code?
    >> Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change
    >> it
    >>
    >> b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    >> b> script and minimum client-side?
    >>
    >> It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much compatibility
    >>

    B> with
    B>
    >> other web browsers do you need.
    >> If everything works good now you haven't to change this for asp.net,

    B> except
    B>
    >> where server-side code is really need
    >>
    >> b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    >> b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    >> b> between client and server?
    >> yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty
    >>

    B> well)
    B>
    >> ---
    >> WBR,
    >> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents
    >> do
    >>

    B> not
    B>
    >> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >>

    ---
    WBR,
    Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

    "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
    cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
     
    Michael Nemtsev, Mar 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Ben

    Bob Guest

    Thanks,
    I imagined 'balance ' as something different. Suppose an application which
    gets some data from the server, but then executes a lot of heavy
    calculations and displays it. Is it not better to let the client executing
    those calculations instead of the server?
    What i mean is: what can the server best do and what can the client best do?
    Is this correct: avoid postback as much as possible but let the server do
    all the remaining things?

    A last question maybe ...
    if i want to keep the javascript on client-side for all onclick events, can
    i use the new webcontrols and htmlcontrols of asp.net or i have to use the
    old button, input, submit, select ... i used with asp classic?
    If not, why those webcontrols then?
    Thanks

    "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Bob,
    >
    > Balance is determined with the size of round-trips to the server and back.
    > For example if you need to fill listbox with values from another listbox
    > you need to do it with JavaScript, to avoid postbacks for each item

    transfer
    > between listbox.
    > Use such tools like HTTPWatch, Fidler to look at your VIEWSTATE and how

    much
    > postbacks in your page interactions to diminish them with JavaScripts

    (where
    > it posible only)
    >
    > BTW, I recomend to apply AJAX to your new projects. It's drastically

    diminish
    > size of data transfered between client and server
    >
    > B> Thanks for replying.
    > B> When creating an new application, what do you suggest? Using as much
    > B> as
    > B> possible server-side code or finding a balance between cleint and
    > B> server?
    > B> And how to determine that balance?
    > B> Ben
    > B> "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    > B> news:...
    > >> Hello ben,
    > >>
    > >> b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and
    > >> video
    > >> b> stuffs
    > >> b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    > >> b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The
    > >> b> whole day
    > >> b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click
    > >> in a
    > >> b> cel
    > >> b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and
    > >> finally
    > >> b> click on
    > >> b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    > >> b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All
    > >> b> onclick
    > >> b> events are executed on client-side.
    > >> b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use
    > >> that
    > >> b> client-side code?
    > >> Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change
    > >> it
    > >>
    > >> b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    > >> b> script and minimum client-side?
    > >>
    > >> It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much compatibility
    > >>

    > B> with
    > B>
    > >> other web browsers do you need.
    > >> If everything works good now you haven't to change this for asp.net,

    > B> except
    > B>
    > >> where server-side code is really need
    > >>
    > >> b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    > >> b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    > >> b> between client and server?
    > >> yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty
    > >>

    > B> well)
    > B>
    > >> ---
    > >> WBR,
    > >> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    > >> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents
    > >> do
    > >>

    > B> not
    > B>
    > >> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    > >>

    > ---
    > WBR,
    > Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >
    > "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do

    not
    > cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >
    >
     
    Bob, Mar 26, 2006
    #7
  8. The beuty of ASP.net is that you can write only server side code, yet it
    generates a certain amount of client side code, where apropriate. For
    examply the validation controls, you don't have to write any code at all,
    just ASP.net markup, they then generate a load of client side javascript
    automatically that validates the forms acording to your criteria. Also with
    ASP.net2 you can use AJAX to create call backs to the server. It's horses
    for courses really, i avoid client side code whenever i can, but if you are
    comforatable with it or the website gets a lot of hits and you want to
    minimise server load then go ahead.

    "Ben" wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and video stuffs
    > for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    > The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The whole day
    > is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click in a cel
    > representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and finally click on
    > the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    >
    > My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All onclick
    > events are executed on client-side.
    > Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use that
    > client-side code?
    >
    > Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side script and
    > minimum client-side? If so, is there no danger to overload the server,
    > instead of sharing the execution of the application between client and
    > server?
    >
    > Thanks for help
    > Ben
    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Y2xpY2tvbg==?=, Mar 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Hello Bob,

    B> Thanks,
    B> I imagined 'balance ' as something different. Suppose an application
    B> which
    B> gets some data from the server, but then executes a lot of heavy
    B> calculations and displays it. Is it not better to let the client
    B> executing
    B> those calculations instead of the server?

    If this calculation can be easily performed on client, do in on client.
    Thus you need only 1 postback to the server.
    For example let used typed "2" and "2" and you press "Add" button. Using
    server-side approach you need
    1) to send this data to server
    2) add them
    3) return result to the client

    It's not appropriate solution. What do you really need is to perform this
    task on client.

    B> What i mean is: what can the server best do and what can the client
    B> best do?
    B> Is this correct: avoid postback as much as possible but let the
    B> server do
    B> all the remaining things?

    Client best for the UI tasks, and server for server ones. I take a position
    to use more html controls if it's possible, and server controls for other
    cases.
    Several UI interactions, changing value of controls, message boxes, changing
    layout are JavaScripts tasks.
    And such task as dataBinding, interaction with other components (all not
    UI tasks) are for server.
    But there is another problem - if you site need to be working in several
    browsers using JS is a tricky due to compatibility. For this case diminish
    using the JS and put logic that works wrong in other browser to the server.

    B> A last question maybe ...
    B> if i want to keep the javascript on client-side for all onclick
    B> events, can
    B> i use the new webcontrols and htmlcontrols of asp.net or i have to
    B> use the
    B> old button, input, submit, select ... i used with asp classic?
    B> If not, why those webcontrols then?

    You could use HTML controls, because most of them are directly mapped
    to the native html controls.
    Problem is that server controls event handling is not directly mapped
    to html one. I mean that for server controls, let take asp:TextBox for example,
    there is no such events like "onfocus", "onclick" and etc. And you need perfrom
    additiona task to assign action to this events directly from server code
    using control.Attribute[] property.


    To sum what I've told you about, in era of AJAX using JS is more and more
    common, and if you are both confident in JS and server code
    apply JS where is possible to be in the bound of browser comatibility and
    time spend to implement required behavior.
    For the propotype use server code, and afterward analyze the number of
    postbacks and size of VIEWSTATE to find the places where to apply JS to make
    you site more "thin"

    >> Hello Bob,
    >>
    >> Balance is determined with the size of round-trips to the server and
    >> back. For example if you need to fill listbox with values from
    >> another listbox you need to do it with JavaScript, to avoid postbacks
    >> for each item
    >>

    B> transfer
    B>
    >> between listbox.
    >> Use such tools like HTTPWatch, Fidler to look at your VIEWSTATE and
    >> how

    B> much
    B>
    >> postbacks in your page interactions to diminish them with JavaScripts
    >>

    B> (where
    B>
    >> it posible only)
    >>
    >> BTW, I recomend to apply AJAX to your new projects. It's drastically
    >>

    B> diminish
    B>
    >> size of data transfered between client and server
    >>
    >> B> Thanks for replying.
    >> B> When creating an new application, what do you suggest? Using as
    >> much
    >> B> as
    >> B> possible server-side code or finding a balance between cleint and
    >> B> server?
    >> B> And how to determine that balance?
    >> B> Ben
    >> B> "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    >> B> news:...
    >>>> Hello ben,
    >>>>
    >>>> b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and
    >>>> video
    >>>> b> stuffs
    >>>> b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    >>>> b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button.
    >>>> The
    >>>> b> whole day
    >>>> b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click
    >>>> in a
    >>>> b> cel
    >>>> b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and
    >>>> finally
    >>>> b> click on
    >>>> b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    >>>> b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code.
    >>>> All
    >>>> b> onclick
    >>>> b> events are executed on client-side.
    >>>> b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use
    >>>> that
    >>>> b> client-side code?
    >>>> Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change
    >>>> it
    >>>> b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    >>>> b> script and minimum client-side?
    >>>>
    >>>> It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much
    >>>> compatibility
    >>>>

    >> B> with
    >> B>
    >>>> other web browsers do you need.
    >>>> If everything works good now you haven't to change this for
    >>>> asp.net,

    >> B> except
    >> B>
    >>>> where server-side code is really need
    >>>>
    >>>> b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    >>>> b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    >>>> b> between client and server?
    >>>> yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty

    >> B> well)
    >> B>
    >>>> ---
    >>>> WBR,
    >>>> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >>>> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its
    >>>> opponents
    >>>> do

    >> B> not
    >> B>
    >>>> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >>>>

    >> ---
    >> WBR,
    >> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents
    >> do
    >>

    B> not
    B>
    >> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >>

    ---
    WBR,
    Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

    "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
    cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
     
    Michael Nemtsev, Mar 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Ben

    Bob Guest

    Thanks

    "clickon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The beuty of ASP.net is that you can write only server side code, yet it
    > generates a certain amount of client side code, where apropriate. For
    > examply the validation controls, you don't have to write any code at all,
    > just ASP.net markup, they then generate a load of client side javascript
    > automatically that validates the forms acording to your criteria. Also

    with
    > ASP.net2 you can use AJAX to create call backs to the server. It's horses
    > for courses really, i avoid client side code whenever i can, but if you

    are
    > comforatable with it or the website gets a lot of hits and you want to
    > minimise server load then go ahead.
    >
    > "Ben" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and video

    stuffs
    > > for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    > > The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button. The whole

    day
    > > is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click in a

    cel
    > > representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and finally

    click on
    > > the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    > >
    > > My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code. All

    onclick
    > > events are executed on client-side.
    > > Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use that
    > > client-side code?
    > >
    > > Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side script

    and
    > > minimum client-side? If so, is there no danger to overload the server,
    > > instead of sharing the execution of the application between client and
    > > server?
    > >
    > > Thanks for help
    > > Ben
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Bob, Mar 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Ben

    Bob Guest

    Thanks for your explanation

    "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Bob,
    >
    > B> Thanks,
    > B> I imagined 'balance ' as something different. Suppose an application
    > B> which
    > B> gets some data from the server, but then executes a lot of heavy
    > B> calculations and displays it. Is it not better to let the client
    > B> executing
    > B> those calculations instead of the server?
    >
    > If this calculation can be easily performed on client, do in on

    client.
    > Thus you need only 1 postback to the server.
    > For example let used typed "2" and "2" and you press "Add" button.

    Using
    > server-side approach you need
    > 1) to send this data to server
    > 2) add them
    > 3) return result to the client
    >
    > It's not appropriate solution. What do you really need is to perform

    this
    > task on client.
    >
    > B> What i mean is: what can the server best do and what can the client
    > B> best do?
    > B> Is this correct: avoid postback as much as possible but let the
    > B> server do
    > B> all the remaining things?
    >
    > Client best for the UI tasks, and server for server ones. I take a

    position
    > to use more html controls if it's possible, and server controls for other
    > cases.
    > Several UI interactions, changing value of controls, message boxes,

    changing
    > layout are JavaScripts tasks.
    > And such task as dataBinding, interaction with other components (all

    not
    > UI tasks) are for server.
    > But there is another problem - if you site need to be working in

    several
    > browsers using JS is a tricky due to compatibility. For this case diminish
    > using the JS and put logic that works wrong in other browser to the

    server.
    >
    > B> A last question maybe ...
    > B> if i want to keep the javascript on client-side for all onclick
    > B> events, can
    > B> i use the new webcontrols and htmlcontrols of asp.net or i have to
    > B> use the
    > B> old button, input, submit, select ... i used with asp classic?
    > B> If not, why those webcontrols then?
    >
    > You could use HTML controls, because most of them are directly mapped
    > to the native html controls.
    > Problem is that server controls event handling is not directly mapped
    > to html one. I mean that for server controls, let take asp:TextBox for

    example,
    > there is no such events like "onfocus", "onclick" and etc. And you need

    perfrom
    > additiona task to assign action to this events directly from server code
    > using control.Attribute[] property.
    >
    >
    > To sum what I've told you about, in era of AJAX using JS is more and

    more
    > common, and if you are both confident in JS and server code
    > apply JS where is possible to be in the bound of browser comatibility

    and
    > time spend to implement required behavior.
    > For the propotype use server code, and afterward analyze the number of
    > postbacks and size of VIEWSTATE to find the places where to apply JS to

    make
    > you site more "thin"
    >
    > >> Hello Bob,
    > >>
    > >> Balance is determined with the size of round-trips to the server and
    > >> back. For example if you need to fill listbox with values from
    > >> another listbox you need to do it with JavaScript, to avoid postbacks
    > >> for each item
    > >>

    > B> transfer
    > B>
    > >> between listbox.
    > >> Use such tools like HTTPWatch, Fidler to look at your VIEWSTATE and
    > >> how

    > B> much
    > B>
    > >> postbacks in your page interactions to diminish them with JavaScripts
    > >>

    > B> (where
    > B>
    > >> it posible only)
    > >>
    > >> BTW, I recomend to apply AJAX to your new projects. It's drastically
    > >>

    > B> diminish
    > B>
    > >> size of data transfered between client and server
    > >>
    > >> B> Thanks for replying.
    > >> B> When creating an new application, what do you suggest? Using as
    > >> much
    > >> B> as
    > >> B> possible server-side code or finding a balance between cleint and
    > >> B> server?
    > >> B> And how to determine that balance?
    > >> B> Ben
    > >> B> "Michael Nemtsev" <> wrote in message
    > >> B> news:...
    > >>>> Hello ben,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> b> I made an application in classic asp (reservation of books and
    > >>>> video
    > >>>> b> stuffs
    > >>>> b> for students) and want to migrate to asp.net.
    > >>>> b> The user has to chose a date, then pushung on a submit button.
    > >>>> The
    > >>>> b> whole day
    > >>>> b> is then displayed in cels of a table. The user has then to click
    > >>>> in a
    > >>>> b> cel
    > >>>> b> representing a hour of the day and an object (book ..), and
    > >>>> finally
    > >>>> b> click on
    > >>>> b> the submit button to insert that reservation in the database.
    > >>>> b> My problem is: there is a lot of javascript client-side code.
    > >>>> All
    > >>>> b> onclick
    > >>>> b> events are executed on client-side.
    > >>>> b> Have i to change this into server-side code or i can still use
    > >>>> that
    > >>>> b> client-side code?
    > >>>> Why for doing this? The current schema is normal, needn't to change
    > >>>> it
    > >>>> b> Is it true that the filosophy of asp.net is: maximum server-side
    > >>>> b> script and minimum client-side?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> It depends on your scripts, functionality and how much
    > >>>> compatibility
    > >>>>
    > >> B> with
    > >> B>
    > >>>> other web browsers do you need.
    > >>>> If everything works good now you haven't to change this for
    > >>>> asp.net,
    > >> B> except
    > >> B>
    > >>>> where server-side code is really need
    > >>>>
    > >>>> b> If so, is there no danger to overload
    > >>>> b> the server, instead of sharing the execution of the application
    > >>>> b> between client and server?
    > >>>> yes, it's a problem due to big VIEWSTATE (btw that is zipped pretty
    > >> B> well)
    > >> B>
    > >>>> ---
    > >>>> WBR,
    > >>>> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    > >>>> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its
    > >>>> opponents
    > >>>> do
    > >> B> not
    > >> B>
    > >>>> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    > >>>>
    > >> ---
    > >> WBR,
    > >> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    > >> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents
    > >> do
    > >>

    > B> not
    > B>
    > >> cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    > >>

    > ---
    > WBR,
    > Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
    >
    > "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do

    not
    > cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
    >
    >
     
    Bob, Mar 27, 2006
    #11
    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.

Share This Page