Comments on: ASP.NET MVC options for consolidating HTML

By: Another Mike

Another Mike — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:58:05 +0000

Instead of passing an object to the view and doing a for each loop I am just generating the html for the table in the model. Then passing the html / string to the view. Is this bad design?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:14:48 +0000

For me the best thing about MVC is that I don’t have to deal with the nutty page/control lifecycles any more. Good riddance!!

By: John

John — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:41:52 +0000

True, a simple LI might be easier with a for loop. But you can still do that directly on a webform if you watn. But if you want to have a reusable list that can be customizable via parameters, then all of a sudden it’s easier to create a user control.

For me, with writing LOB applications, or even ecommerce apps, a lot of the problem stems around keeping parameters during postback and using a control multiple times on a page while ensuring that all of the ids are unique. Stuff like that is a cinch with webforms, while it requires hacks that, to me, are just as bad as what people complain about regarding lifecycle.

To each his own. I want to believe in MVC. Maybe in a couple of releases many of my issues will be resolved or mitigated. By then, though, Scottgu and team might have made webforms much more workable, too.

It really is fun. Our career path will never be boring .

By: bogardj

bogardj — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:53:43 +0000

@Nikola

I doubt it. Silverlight isn’t for web applications. It’s for WPF applications hosted on the web. That’s a _huge_ difference in experience for the end user. I think we all need to abandon the “Flash/Silverlight/Javaservlets will replace the web” idea, they don’t and never will.

By: Nikola Malovic

Nikola Malovic — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:00:33 +0000

I wonder whe Silverlight plugin would be on 99% of browsers, would this MVS vs WebForms debate still be of any importance

By: bogardj

bogardj — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:14:34 +0000

@John

Fair enough, but I’m dealing with scenarios where I don’t want to abstract HTML. HTML + JavaScript + jQuery are easy. WebForms solved a problem I didn’t have, and the PostBack model is only ideal for very targeted scenarios, such as things like portals.

Living in MVC land (not just ASP.NET MVC, but MVC in general) has let me focus on the _real_ problems of building an application, not contrived ones like ViewState, page lifecycle and all the heavyweight cruft of Controls.

For example, a “for” loop for creating

tags is easier than a Repeater, in my experience. It’s obvious and simple to explain and use. In my experience, it’s much harder to explain the WebForms model than MVC.

By: John

John — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:31:45 +0000

All of these are ways to encapsulate HTML and view-creating code for reuse. They all have plusses and minuses. They require understanding interactions between parts. Sounds a lot like webform usercontrols to me. You’re replacing page lifecycle and viewstate with other pieces that are also complex.

This whole argument reminds me of the C++ vs. C# argument. It’s very much the same. C++ people want maximum flexibility and power. C# people are willing to give some of that up for higher-level coding with strong types. Neither is wrong. Both have their places. Same with Webforms vs. MVC. Both are smelly in their own ways. Both make some things harder and some things easier. A person has to decide whether they want to do low-level programming (html, javascript), etc., vs. higher-level programming (webforms, controls), etc. With lower-level programming, you can always build reusable code to give you a higher-level feel, and with higher-level programming, you can also make direct calls to lower-level code when you need to.

Me, I’m sticking with webforms until someone can tell me a better way. So far, at least with this version, MVC isn’t it. I’ve been doing web development since the original ASP. I did dhtml/xmlhttprequests back in 99 with IE before it had a name. I celebrated being able to get away from direct HTML and the like. Without a compelling reason, I don’t want to go back. And for me, better testability is not enough. I’ll take easier front-end coding with harder testability vs. harder front-end coding and easier testability any day.

Just my thoughts.

John West

By: bogardj

bogardj — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:12:29 +0000

@brad

I’d love to see some code on the problems you’re seeing. If you get a chance, put a link back here to a blog post with the issues you’ve described.

By: brad

brad — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:23:55 +0000

@bogardj
for starters, i am not suggesting returning to viewstate and heavy controls, i just dont like the way all these options “feel”. I think my biggest problem is the fact that you do the data mapping out to html on the view side and then back in on the controller side. This doesnt pass the smell test. I have not fully come up w/ a solution, yet so i guess i shouldnt bitch too loudly

By: Almond

Almond — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:02:53 +0000

This is a great summray of a issue I bumped into when I first started using MVC and still see a lot of other people posting online about.

Thanks for your great article!