why Microsoft don't like frames...

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by dj Bass, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. dj Bass

    dj Bass Guest

    simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side controls... and
    when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's up the
    asp.net strategy.
    right or wrong?
     
    dj Bass, Jul 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Actually, the reasoning against frames is more complex:

    1. Many users hate frames (mostly due to bad implementations that have
    surfaced over the past few years0
    2. You cannot bookmark an individual page with frames

    I use client side script regularly in .NET. I do not normally use frames,
    but I do have some apps where they make sense, and I utilize frames in those
    apps.

    The .NET server side controls simplify your life, where they make sense
    (which is many, if not most, applications). If you chose not to use them,
    you write a lot of extra code. This is not necessarily bad; it is just
    another way at approaching your development problem.

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge

    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    Think Outside the Box!
    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    "dj Bass" <> wrote in message
    news:uVO$...
    > simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side controls...

    and
    > when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's up

    the
    > asp.net strategy.
    > right or wrong?
    >
    >
     
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\), Jul 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dj Bass

    jim corey Guest

    And yet, if you go to the starter kits at www.asp.net, they have all
    these report demos that use frames. Probably so you can see the
    header and scroll the detail.


    "dj Bass" <> wrote in message news:<uVO$>...
    > simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side controls... and
    > when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's up the
    > asp.net strategy.
    > right or wrong?
     
    jim corey, Jul 17, 2003
    #3
  4. dj Bass

    dj Bass Guest

    My situation is that I've been called to port asp pages to asp.net... with
    port being defined as rewriting the code the .net way, rather than getting
    it working in VS.net.

    A lot of the work relies on a tree section down the left hand side, and
    through your selection, the differing screens have a control panel, then an
    overview analyzing a database table, then a drill down into this table,
    which currently is another frame.


    +--------------------------------------------------------+
    | tree | main
    |
    | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    | | o control panel
    o |
    | | o
    o |
    | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    | | o over view
    o |
    | | o
    o |
    | | o
    o |
    | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    | | o detailed drill down o
    |
    | | o
    o |
    | | o
    o |
    | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    +--------------------------------------------------------+


    there's no reason why tree and main cause problems since a button click
    simply launches another screen, but when you get a situation where a load of
    records [overview] on a datagrid have selection, and you click on a button
    on the [control panel], it's not possible to determine what records are
    currently selected (i use a template column with check boxes to simulate
    multiple selection), and therefore not posssible to do anything with those
    selected columns.

    Frames still are advantageous over DIV tags because frames are resizable,
    catering for different resolutions and sizes that IE could be run at, where
    the DIV is a set value, whether absolute or relative, it's still fixed.

    Is it worth migrating to a DIV style main page where the drill downs and
    datagrid objects are all written within DIV tags, rather than frames and
    hence, other objects?

    Thanks for your input.
    Daniel.

    "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <> wrote in
    message news:%...
    > Actually, the reasoning against frames is more complex:
    >
    > 1. Many users hate frames (mostly due to bad implementations that have
    > surfaced over the past few years0
    > 2. You cannot bookmark an individual page with frames
    >
    > I use client side script regularly in .NET. I do not normally use frames,
    > but I do have some apps where they make sense, and I utilize frames in

    those
    > apps.
    >
    > The .NET server side controls simplify your life, where they make sense
    > (which is many, if not most, applications). If you chose not to use them,
    > you write a lot of extra code. This is not necessarily bad; it is just
    > another way at approaching your development problem.
    >
    > --
    > Gregory A. Beamer
    > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
    >
    >

    ****************************************************************************
    > ****
    > Think Outside the Box!
    >

    ****************************************************************************
    > ****
    > "dj Bass" <> wrote in message
    > news:uVO$...
    > > simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side controls...

    > and
    > > when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's up

    > the
    > > asp.net strategy.
    > > right or wrong?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    dj Bass, Jul 17, 2003
    #4
  5. dj Bass

    dj Bass Guest

    > Wrong. Frames have always been problematic.

    problematic because they are client side? or is it in an ideal world we'd
    like everything to work in the server side, which sucks, because everytime a
    refresh on anything occurs, the whole page has to be loaded rather than
    individual sections.

    Frames can be resized, by the user, or by the client side script, which
    DIV's etc can't do.

    i'd say they're not used properly, not problematic.
     
    dj Bass, Jul 18, 2003
    #5
  6. In a web site with static HTML pages they are no problem at all. Using them
    properly is problematic in any kind of web application. If you don't believe
    me, just try to build a web application with frames. Use ASP, ASP.Net, PHP,
    or whatever flavor of server-side technology you want. It can be done, but
    it is problematic.

    --
    HTH,

    Kevin Spencer
    Microsoft MVP
    ..Net Developer
    http://www.takempis.com
    Big things are made up of
    lots of little things.

    "dj Bass" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Wrong. Frames have always been problematic.

    >
    > problematic because they are client side? or is it in an ideal world we'd
    > like everything to work in the server side, which sucks, because everytime

    a
    > refresh on anything occurs, the whole page has to be loaded rather than
    > individual sections.
    >
    > Frames can be resized, by the user, or by the client side script, which
    > DIV's etc can't do.
    >
    > i'd say they're not used properly, not problematic.
    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Jul 18, 2003
    #6
  7. Daniel:

    You have two issues here:

    How do I layout my data?
    How do I display individual data elements?

    To the first (data layout), I would most likely lay out one after another
    and allow the page to scroll. This will require "retraining" users, as the
    info will not necessarily be contained on one screen (with scrolling
    portions, of course - the frames). I do not see a lot of difference between
    scrolling the whole page and scrolling single elements. You will need to
    prototype the "new" way if you head that direction and ensure you do not
    have an end user mutiny. If you continue with frames, take the time to fully
    encapsulate each page. ASP is notorious for spaghetti code and pages that
    are dependent on each other. .NET gives you the ability to straighten this
    out, and separate the code and UI elements, as well. You can still have
    client side script talk to individual frames and pass information (either
    through some form of persistence (session variables or static (Shared
    VB.NET) routines (careful with static, as users can bump into each other))
    or through the querystring. You only seem to be more limited than ASP, as
    you are not as familiar with it. I currently use querystring to set page
    variables, although primarily for popup dialogs instead of frames.

    Display is the method of getting the data on the page. DIV tag is an option,
    but .NET has a bunch of great server controls, like the DataGrid, DataList
    and Repeater, that allow you to layout your data. Unlike ASP, you simply
    bind a DataTable or DataReader to the server control. You can also extend
    many of these controls, as Dino Esposito does with the DataGrid in his ASP
    ..NET/ADO .NET book. The Repeater is the most flexible, as any HTML output is
    legal.

    What I am saying is the question of separating the Control Panel, Overview
    and Drilldown into separate pages, or just separate elements on a single
    page is a separate decision from the actual display of the data.

    The .NET way
    Here is one possibility: If your Control Panel, Overview and Drilldown are
    elements that always behave the same, and have potential use in a variety of
    applications, I would take the time (if you have it) to write them out as a
    server control. You can then determine if it is best to slap the controls in
    one page or have them in multiple page, with frames. You can even make it so
    a user can choose which way they prefer to look at data, as creating the
    frames version will simply be conquering the postback write of client side
    JavaScript.

    The main concern, in .NET, is making sure your UI and code are separate, and
    that you are sticking to good software practices (encapsulation of code, et
    al). While you can kludge ASP .NET by writing it like updated ASP, you will
    end up with an unmanageable application.

    Don't worry, we all went through the shock. I ended up moving to C#, from
    VB, to make sure I was not confusing syntax with paradigm. When I first
    started VB .NET, I was just trying to learn the new object model, not the
    new methodology. If you are more into a C style language, learning .NET
    concepts may be easier with VB .NET. I now can move back and forth between
    VB .NET and C# with ease. I mess up the syntax every once in awhile, but VS
    ..NET is great at yelling at my "typos".

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge

    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    Think Outside the Box!
    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    "dj Bass" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My situation is that I've been called to port asp pages to asp.net... with
    > port being defined as rewriting the code the .net way, rather than getting
    > it working in VS.net.
    >
    > A lot of the work relies on a tree section down the left hand side, and
    > through your selection, the differing screens have a control panel, then

    an
    > overview analyzing a database table, then a drill down into this table,
    > which currently is another frame.
    >
    >
    > +--------------------------------------------------------+
    > | tree | main
    > |
    > | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    > | | o control panel
    > o |
    > | | o
    > o |
    > | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    > | | o over view
    > o |
    > | | o
    > o |
    > | | o
    > o |
    > | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    > | | o detailed drill down

    o
    > |
    > | | o
    > o |
    > | | o
    > o |
    > | | ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
    > +--------------------------------------------------------+
    >
    >
    > there's no reason why tree and main cause problems since a button click
    > simply launches another screen, but when you get a situation where a load

    of
    > records [overview] on a datagrid have selection, and you click on a button
    > on the [control panel], it's not possible to determine what records are
    > currently selected (i use a template column with check boxes to simulate
    > multiple selection), and therefore not posssible to do anything with those
    > selected columns.
    >
    > Frames still are advantageous over DIV tags because frames are resizable,
    > catering for different resolutions and sizes that IE could be run at,

    where
    > the DIV is a set value, whether absolute or relative, it's still fixed.
    >
    > Is it worth migrating to a DIV style main page where the drill downs and
    > datagrid objects are all written within DIV tags, rather than frames and
    > hence, other objects?
    >
    > Thanks for your input.
    > Daniel.
    >
    > "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <> wrote

    in
    > message news:%...
    > > Actually, the reasoning against frames is more complex:
    > >
    > > 1. Many users hate frames (mostly due to bad implementations that have
    > > surfaced over the past few years0
    > > 2. You cannot bookmark an individual page with frames
    > >
    > > I use client side script regularly in .NET. I do not normally use

    frames,
    > > but I do have some apps where they make sense, and I utilize frames in

    > those
    > > apps.
    > >
    > > The .NET server side controls simplify your life, where they make sense
    > > (which is many, if not most, applications). If you chose not to use

    them,
    > > you write a lot of extra code. This is not necessarily bad; it is just
    > > another way at approaching your development problem.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Gregory A. Beamer
    > > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    > > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
    > >
    > >

    >

    ****************************************************************************
    > > ****
    > > Think Outside the Box!
    > >

    >

    ****************************************************************************
    > > ****
    > > "dj Bass" <> wrote in message
    > > news:uVO$...
    > > > simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side

    controls...
    > > and
    > > > when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's

    up
    > > the
    > > > asp.net strategy.
    > > > right or wrong?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\), Jul 18, 2003
    #7
  8. The Starter Kits are great tools. I am not sure reporting will work 100% for
    this user, but it would be a nice way to spice up the app.

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge

    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    Think Outside the Box!
    ****************************************************************************
    ****
    "jim corey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > And yet, if you go to the starter kits at www.asp.net, they have all
    > these report demos that use frames. Probably so you can see the
    > header and scroll the detail.
    >
    >
    > "dj Bass" <> wrote in message

    news:<uVO$>...
    > > simple, they don't like things that restrict the server-side controls...

    and
    > > when it comes to frames, you need client side stuff and that stuff's up

    the
    > > asp.net strategy.
    > > right or wrong?
     
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\), Jul 18, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles A. Lackman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,439
    smith
    Dec 8, 2004
  2. SpamProof
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    636
    SpamProof
    Oct 21, 2003
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    977
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,216
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  5. Brian Cryer
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,414
    dorayme
    Feb 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page