Talk:ASP.NET
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theASP.NET article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1 |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The content ofASPX wasmerged intoASP.NET. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page. |
Archives | |
| |
This part seems incorrect:
On IIS 6.0 and lower, pages written using different versions of the ASP framework cannot share Session State without the use of third-party libraries. This criticism does not apply to ASP.NET and ASP applications running side by side on IIS 7. With IIS 7, modules may be run in an integrated pipeline that allows modules written in any language to be executed for any request.[18]
It seems there is no (easy) way to share session state between ASP.NET and legacy (or classic) ASP pages both placed in the same directory (hence in a same web application). There a lot of solutions involving databases and a lot of changes on both places (ASP.NET and ASP), but nothing working out-of-the-box. Is it possible this statement to be valid only for ASP.NET applications, say one that is 1.1 and another that is 2.0?--85.130.3.78 (talk)11:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to "clean code" without a link. Quotation marks are around "clean", but not "code". If this is a reference toRobert C Martin's concept of clean code, I recommend extending the quotation marks to surround both words, and making that a link, either to an article on clean code, or at least to the one on Martin.Unfree (talk)16:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The viewstate does not track form values, it's a source of confusion amongs a lot of ASP.NET programmers.
Form values are already sent with the postback data, so these don't have to be in the viewstate. See:
Viewstate only has to contain the state which changed from the defaults set in the ASCX files and OnInit() method. That includes:
Programmers who fill the default Page_Load() method, end up with a huge ViewState.This state is transmitted back and forth with every page request, causing performance issues.
Vdboor (talk)09:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY WE USE ASP.NET,WHY NOT USE PHP OR JAVA#—Precedingunsigned comment added by220.226.191.107 (talk)03:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the criticism section parts regarding session/state management was written by someone who did not fully understand the technology. What is being refered to here are inprocess sessions, one of the many ways ASP.NET/IIS can handle session data, and only a valid solution for the smallest of deployments. Session data storage is typically handled outside of the webserver that way a single site can be serviced by many web servers and gracefully handle server failures.
ASP.NET handles using sql as a session store, and comes with scripts to build these databases (except .net 1.0 which is located here.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311209 )
There are plenty of valid criticisms to make about ASP.NET (Memory use, first hit compiling delay, inability to really just use the pieces you want, not embracing friendly/suffixless urls, etc) without traveling down such subjective criticisms—Precedingunsigned comment added by97.102.228.141 (talk)06:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At the server side, the application may change the viewstate, if the processing requires a change of state of any control."Huh? This isn't a well formed sentence...—Precedingunsigned comment added by99.224.141.81 (talk)17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there should be a lot more in Criticism than there currently is. The only item in there at the moment has more to do with IIS than ASP.NET, but there are plenty of criticisms regularly levelled against ASP.NET - the viewstate becoming ridiculousy huge, the javascript requirement for many of the controls, the way it messess around with your HTML id's, the fact that even basic validation is done on the server, loss of control over the source, the noticable delay when doing a first compile, relatively high server requirements, the desktop style model is actually rather unsuitable for most websites, and the fact that many of the methods pushed by Microsoft are only required due to this odd development style in the first place. Of course, some of these thins are more of a problem with the way Visual Studo handles ASP.NET solutions, but that hasn't seemed to have stopped anyone using such things as supposed benefits. Half of the benefits listed are only benefits if you don't know how to do it yourself in the firs place. Also, you can get around many of these problems by not using feature X or Y, but if you have to do that for most of the features, you have to ask if you're using the right tchnologies in the first place. Horribly unbalanced shill articles like this are why no-one believes anything they read on Wiki any more.—Precedingunsigned comment added by94.5.13.206 (talk)12:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I defy anybody to tell me what this means:
"ASP.NET uses a visited composites rendering technique. During compilation, the template (.aspx) file is compiled into initialization code which builds a control tree (the composite) representing the original template. Literal text goes into instances of the Literal control class, and server controls are represented by instances of a specific control class. The initialization code is combined with user-written code (usually by the assembly of multiple partial classes) and results in a class specific for the page. The page doubles as the root of the control tree."—Precedingunsigned comment added by74.176.210.68 (talk)03:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with the IP address117.201.97.210changed a portion of theexample code on the page. I would revert this change but I'm not sure how to do it without affecting any other edits made to the article after that edit.aidilfbk (talk)13:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section seems wildly out of date; it ends in 2003, before the release of ASP.NET 2.0.Moraleboost (talk)04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It provide GUI(graphical user interface) environment for user to design attractive webform— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnshu256 (talk •contribs)11:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onASP.NET. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The table of version numbers lists 4.8.1 but omits 4.8. One of the citations in the 4.8.1 section is actually about 4.8 and it gives the release date as 2019 rather than 2022, the date given in the table. So, it seems there is some confusion between these two versions. Can someone more knowledgeable than me clarify?Jno.skinner (talk)17:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's short description (only visible on mobile or at the top of the article source) describes ASP.NET as 'Open-source web application framework', but the infobox says 'License Proprietary software' One of them must be wrong. The infobox cites a near decade old source, so things may have changed in the meantime, but I'm not knowledgable enough on ASP.NET to know the correct answer.DDFoster96 (talk)15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
