|
1. separate event handlers
2. flexibility
3. custom renderers
I'd been called 'ugly', 'pug ugly', 'fugly', 'pug fugly' but never 'ugly ugly'. - Moe Szyslak
|
|
|
|
|
They were also introduced with .NET 2, right?
Don't try it, just do it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Yep
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters Q and R were removed.
|
|
|
|
|
I use generics alot in the current project..Very useful in collection classes.
Also the new ADO.NET design is great (using Factories).
I'm going to use System.Transactions too.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the greatest part of 2.0
|
|
|
|
|
Except that almost every transaction will be auto-promoted to a distributed transaction, even if they don't need to be. Making snapshot isolation useless on SQL Server 2005, and requiring that network access be enabled in DTC, which can be a security risk.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
hi
I want to know that ,
Do .net2 support dockable toolbar(built in) ?
|
|
|
|
|
download it and see.
but to answer you, yes it does
|
|
|
|
|
I started working with C# finally(for a database app, and will soon start asp as well), (I was made to!) and yes it was easy and very quick, I finished a simple project in less than a week, even with the fact that I was learning it.
But I'm sure about one thing, I don't like it a lot. Like a driver who might not like using a car that does not need driving, I'm a programmer that don't like clicking and dragging, instead of coding, however a car without driving handles might be too technological, too easy, and even more safe, but the enjoyment is an important aspect, I think. Well, I could do much simpler works than programming already.
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
With MasterPages on the list, I have to throw in Themes and Skins, both great helpers when designing/maintaining the look&feel of a site.
|
|
|
|
|
The true is that it doesn't depend from your knowledge or willing to use new and advanced ideas or techniques. At the end, you use or not some techniques or concepts based on the average knowledge of the group that you are working with. Some groups are easy to adopt new ideas and new techniques, and everybody learns and grows a lot. Some other groups if two developers agree in use something then everybody follows but others, oh well......... .
At the end all depends of the famous "Eric Sink marketing bell curve". He say's that exist Early Adopters, Pragmatist, Conservatives and Laggards. With early adopters even pragmatist you use new techniques that solve problems in a better way, with pragmatist conservatives, fud geht abaut it, and pray that you don't have a laggard on the group.
|
|
|
|
|
Not in the list.
I use these a lot now. I use MyGeneration with some of my own templates so Partial classes make it really easy to keep the generated code seperate from any custom code. This way i know i can safely regenerate the CRUD part of the class at any time.
I used to always inherit from the generated class but Partial classes seem to be a more suitable solution (and its the same way the windows form designer does it).
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, what about Partial Classes. Are ideas that help's to solve problems other's just introduce new techniques that you can use it or not and only will create a more elegat code, but other ideas are just the best after the slced bread. and to me partial classes are one of those. Working with a team usng partial classes it is better that having some one writing code on top of your's and going to SCM hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep I love that feature, our custom OR mapping is a lot enhaced by the partial classes.
BTW, an interesting idea to use partial classes to divide the team work over the same class =)
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Since the IL has no knowledge of the original source files, 'Partial Classes' isn't strictly speaking a .NET 2.0 feature - more a compiler / language feature that happened to coincide with .NET 2.0.
Okay, a technicality, but still. :P
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters Q and R were removed.
|
|
|
|
|
MembershipProvider in ASP.NET 2.0 can be used just with SQL Server, so it is useless! For example in my current project my database is oracle and if I tell my manager that MembershipProviders can be used just with SQL Server he will not switch to SQL Server....Sometimes I feal that persons in microsoft are badly lost in their marketing dreams! .NET 2.0 is surely a great thing but also can be stupidly presented!
Kaveh Shahbazian
|
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely wrong. Membership provider is based on ASP.NET 2.0 new provider model. Using this standard you can custom implement any provider as you want. If you are using oracle just create table and implement a class inherited from MembershiProvider. The advantage is, just like Request, Response or Server APIs in any web application you can access any Providers (RoleProvider,MembershipProvider, SitemapProvider etc…). These providers are built based good design patterns.For an example; I am using SQL Server. But I implemented custom provider for Membership and SiteMap to meet my client’s requirement. Please consider the ASP.NET 2.0’s exiting providers just like a Template for custom providers. You must feel this then only you realize its actual power. I’m using Custom Providers (custom sitemap provider, custom membership provider &custom role provider) for Authentication and Role based authorization for my web application. It is very powerful, indeed.
Please go through below links:
1) Provider Model Design Patterns
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspnet/html/asp02182004.asp
2)About provider model
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspp/html/ASPNETProvMod_Intro.asp
|
|
|
|
|
I know this and thanks for your attention. But Implementing - and in fact re-implementing - this providers - apart from their super design patterns - takes some time that is hard to be found in daily work schedules.
Mainly I meant microsoft never gives developers something that is complete in anyway rather it is microsofty in anyway.
That's not neither bad nor good. The point is there will be always breaking tasks in implementation path of projects and I know some projects that because of such things have forgotten to migrate to ASP.NET 2.0 from their current PHP implementations.
Kaveh Shahbazian
|
|
|
|
|
I have found that I have already saved maintenence time by spending a little time up front developing a custom Membership and Profile provider for my organization. It took about a week to make the providers and corresponding tools for user/role administration. But now that that is complete, it is a matter of minutes to configure new applications to use it. We now have a centralized authentication system (with single signon) for all our apps, built on the 2.0 provider models.
The other reason I invested this time won't show its benefit for another year or two. We needed to get user authentication up and running quickly, but we know that we will likely need to merge our applications with another authentication system in perhaps as little as a year. We have a centralized IT office that has been working on their own system, and when it is finished it is likely we'll need to retro-fit our applications to work with it.
So perhaps in a year I'll spend another week building a custom provider to work with their authentication system... but I won't have to change the coding for our applications one bit. I'll just pull out the old provider, and plug in the new one. So it will be a week instead of 6 months, when the time comes.
It would have been nice if Microsoft had packaged an Oracle-based membership provider. But I found it wasn't too difficult to build a provider, and there are advantages to being able to build it custom for your own environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks mike. I will continue to track such issues on .NET. Thanks for your reply. 
Kaveh Shahbazian
|
|
|
|
|
Only wanted to say that i don't like that .NET thing.
I see no reason to use any of the "new programming" idea from ms, the only way i'll be throwing away MSVC6 is by switching to WIN64, and that scares me a bit, because there is no worthy successor to it on any of the current ms products.IMHO.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: i don't like that .NET thing.
Why not?
Jan Rodriguez wrote: I see no reason to use any of the "new programming" idea from ms
.NET is not a programming idea, it is a Framework.
BTW, with .NET you can develop any size of web, desktop and mobile applications in a fast and powerful fashion.
How much time would you need to write an enterprise web-app in classic ASP, PHP or even JSP? ASP.NET makes you save tons of time and thousands lines of code.
How much time would you need to write a dumb utility that batch renames a bunch of files in VC++? Forget all the GUI problems with MFC or whatever and focus on the business logic.
You could complain about performances, but on today's PCs .NET is fast enough to be used widely.
I love .NET, especially 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a framework, it's a full system with no portable code and if you didn't notice it, has the biggest virtual machine ever built by man. Of course, ms has run a lot to include it attached to it's 'new' operating system. It may be made up of assemblies, but you have to install them all.
You say it's a way of focussing on the business logic, by allowing you to write code faster, but coding faster is normally not a good idea, and as programmer one should focus on programming not bussines logic.
Also i want to point out that maybe for a starter (being a bussines or an individual) it's a good way of grasping some programming concepts, or to make your personal c# address book, but nothing more. Who uses them? Adobe? Autodesk? Apple?, well, ms don't even use it to build it's SO apps.
As my last point i'll tell you a history, 9 years ago, a bussines started a really big project, some bussiness men felt that Visual Basic was the way to go, garbage collector, no memory leaks, not even those gui problems you mention on MFC and such. After many years of work, and many different people working on that project, ms decides to release VS7, they included a converter, which didn't work on big apps. And that's it, ms will eventually discontinue C# and the like some few years from now. Even if they don't, would you risk it all again, just because ms says the same things they said when VB was the way to go?
Take my advise, if you want to do serius programming things, use non-managed c++, if you want to play or to learn use .Net.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: Who uses them? Adobe? Autodesk? Apple?
Actually AutoCAD uses .NET for software updates, at least in the 2005 release. NASA uses .NET for its World Wind, There is even a videogame written in C++/CLI (Netkar Pro). The London Stock Exchange runs on .NET and Windows Server 2003 (link[^]).
There are thousands web applications written in ASP.NET, in the Internet.
If Microsoft discontinues .NET, they lose a huge part of the marketshare. It would be a suicide.
My opinion is, BTW, that VB has not been discontinued, but it has been upgraded to VB.NET.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
