ASP .NET 2.0 Unanswered questions...

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> I've said that inline will cause multiple assemblies.
!> I've also said that straight code-behind will cause one assembly.

We'll see. I'm setting up a VS 2003 test app which only uses codebehind.
Two pages should suffice.

If only one assembly is created, fine.
If two assemblies are created, your theory siinks.

re:
!> seem unwilling to do so

Why would you ascribe that thinking to me ?
Just as I read what you wrote, I was geting ready to test the model.

Please, have some respect for me.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> I would suggest (just for kicks) that you create a new ASP.NET 1.1 Project
!> in VS .NET 2003 (if you still have it installed) and just add a couple of
!> pages (no code is needed in those pages). Make sure that all the pages use
!> the code-behind model and check it out.

I have finished the test, using only codebehind for two pages.

As predicted, I wound up with an assembly for each of the 2 pages.
I also have a project assembly and a global.asax assembly.

That's a total of 4 DLLs for a simple project with 2 pages.

To me, that's ample proof that your statement that :
"I've also said that straight code-behind will cause one assembly"
is not correct under all circumstances.

If you want to, I'll zip up the files so you can test or, if you prefer,
you can repro as I did...and write a simple app with two pages.

 

[Rory Becker]

re:

!> I would suggest (just for kicks) that you create a new ASP.NET 1.1
Project
!> in VS .NET 2003 (if you still have it installed) and just add a
couple of
!> pages (no code is needed in those pages). Make sure that all the
pages use
!> the code-behind model and check it out.
I have finished the test, using only codebehind for two pages.

As predicted, I wound up with an assembly for each of the 2 pages. I
also have a project assembly and a global.asax assembly.

That's a total of 4 DLLs for a simple project with 2 pages.

To me, that's ample proof that your statement that :
"I've also said that straight code-behind will cause one assembly"
is not correct under all circumstances.
If you want to, I'll zip up the files so you can test or, if you
prefer, you can repro as I did...and write a simple app with two
pages.

If I could get a zip of what you did, I would love to have a look and see
how it compares to what I would have expected. Mail to RoryBecker [A T ]
[Gee]Mail [Dot]Com

Thanks very much in advance

 

[Scott M.]

Juan,

See, now this is where I think you've let your emotions get the better of
you. You are writing this post in such a way that makes it sound like I've
said or done something I haven't.

I asked you to test and your initial reply was, in effect, I don't like
code-behind, I don't use it. How am I supposed to know that *after* you
wrote this you began preparing to test?!

I think I've been nothing but reasonable here (and logical too) and in your
last few posts you seem more and more upset towards me when all I've done is
present more evidence and logic to support my case. This has absolutely
zero to do with respect and if you think it does, you are reading things
into my posts that are not there. I've have already tried both methods, so
why do I need to do more tests? I'll stand by my results. You were the one
that said you hadn't done one of the methods, so it seemed logical that you
do the other.

Unfortunately, I can't do *more* tests as I have removed VS .NET 2003 from
my machine in favor of VS 2005 (hence my posts on .NET 2.0). But, I will
stand by the 100's of applications I've written with 2003. I'll also stand
by the documentation I've provided. It's great that you and Dino are good
friends, call him up and ask him to explain page 860 to you. Especially how
you can shadow copy one file that contains potentially numerous classes into
numerous files that contain one class each. You are right about the
Global.asax assembly, but since this file/class is not required to be in a
project (nor is it a page), I haven't been including it in my discussion.

As was stated earlier in the thread, can you provide any documentation to
support your results? I can and I have.

As I said before, for me, the issue is closed.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> As was stated earlier in the thread,
!> can you provide any documentation to support your results?

The results speak for themselves.

re:
!> Unfortunately, I can't do *more* tests as I have removed VS .NET 2003
!> from my machine in favor of VS 2005 (hence my posts on .NET 2.0).

You aren't referring to your experience, then, but to your conjectures.
Been there, done that.

Believe me, test results are better than conjectures extrapolated from reading whatever.

re:
!> As I said before, for me, the issue is closed.

You already said that...but evidently the "issue" wasn't as closed as you alleged it to be.

Sorry, Scott, unless you can produce test results which
prove your point, my test results trump your conjectures.

I can't believe your insistence...when you can't even test what you propose
to be correct, in the face of tests which prove that you're mistaken.

 

[Scott M.]

re:
!> As was stated earlier in the thread,
!> can you provide any documentation to support your results?

The results speak for themselves.

So, that would be a "no"?

re:
!> Unfortunately, I can't do *more* tests as I have removed VS .NET 2003
!> from my machine in favor of VS 2005 (hence my posts on .NET 2.0).

You aren't referring to your experience, then, but to your conjectures.
Been there, done that.

Um, I think 5 years and 100's of applications would count as experience,
yes.

Believe me, test results are better than conjectures extrapolated from
reading whatever.

True, but no one is doing that. It is interesting though, that as an
author, you'd have such disregard for documentation.

re:
!> As I said before, for me, the issue is closed.

You already said that...but evidently the "issue" wasn't as closed as you
alleged it to be.

Sorry, Scott, unless you can produce test results which
prove your point, my test results trump your conjectures.

I can't believe your insistence...when you can't even test what you
propose
to be correct, in the face of tests which prove that you're mistaken.

Wow Juan. I thought you were being so reasonable when this discussion
started. But, back on the plonk list you go!

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> But, back on the plonk list you go!

<chuckle>

The truth is hard to bear, huh ?
What you need to do is understand that sometimes you're mistaken.

The sooner you learn to accept that, and move on to other issues, the better off you'll be.

From your statement "back on the plonk list you go",
I understand that you had me there once before ?

I bet you were also mistaken then, and had the same reaction.

<double chuckle>

 

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

From your statement "back on the plonk list you go",
I understand that you had me there once before ?

He's been in my killfile for ages...

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> He's been in my killfile for ages...

He's a dangerous sort of programmer:
one who would falsify reality in order to save face.

i.e., he'd rather misguide everybody who reads this newsgroup
rather than simply admitting that he was mistaken about something.