Question on Using Partial Types with ASP.NET via J.I.T.

[Bret Mulvey [MS]]

Who did the look and feel of the Microsoft site? I find it hard to believe
you did it all in VS.NET
You know, and I know, what tool makes more usable sites and that's
Dreamweaver hands down.
You can't even do tables with VS.NET, the most fundamental thing in Web
Pages.
I would say GotDotNet and Hotmail are designed first in something other than
VS.NET

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool,
not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/features/profeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.

Plus, how many transactions are really going through the Microsoft.com

site?

You can get a sense of this from comScore Media Metrix
(http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=360). Over 2/3rds of all
Internet users visited a Microsoft site in September 2003. If you separate
www.microsoft.com out from other Microsoft web properties, it's the #4 site.
The most popular area of www.microsoft.com is probably
www.microsoft.com/downloads, which is a database-driven site using ASP.NET,
web services, and SQL Server, developed using VS.NET. Millions of
transactions per day.

It took you, microsoft.com, more than TWO (2) years to convert parts of your
web site to .aspx pages

And some parts will never be converted. If it works, why spend money to
change it? We're doing .asp to .aspx conversions as needed, when we do major
version updates of different applications.

But since you use src= quite a lot, at least how I see it, you can see that
CodeBehind is only being used because it's a microsoft thing as when push
comes to shove, you had to use src=.

You're incorrect when you say that "we had to use Src" when push came to
shove. We did not have to use Src for anything. For some projects Codebehind
makes most sense and for other projects Src makes most sense. This is
nothing more than the right tool for the right job. If you need no-touch
deployment, you have the Src option. I find myself using Src less and less
often because Codebehind gives me more flexibility in general, and
definitely enables more code re-use scenarios. Nearly all of the ASP.NET
development happening on my team uses Codebehind.

Plain and simple, VS.NET are simply not productive on web sites. Windows
stuff YES, but Web stuff, no way in the world. The ASP.NET stuff I see on
the macromedia newgroups blows aways the VS.NET stuff hands down. In fact,
even though they have very little people using Dreamweaver for .NET stuff
they seem to have MORE web sites and they are thousands to times better.

VS.NET makes me extremely productive for web site development. I don't think
I'm going to change your mind on this one, but I'm willing to share the
facts of how we use VS.NET on one of the worlds busiest and largest web
sites, and unwilling to let your statement stand. Let's see the numbers.

I've seen some of your other posts where you assert that real, large,
commercial sites don't use OOP, and if they do, the code is unmanageable.
That's simply not factual. Take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/backstage/archives.htm to get more information on
how we use .NET on Microsoft.com. We're much more productive now with VS.NET
than we were three years ago. If you'd like more information on how we use
the OOP metaphor and multi-tier architecture on Microsoft.com, feel free to
ask.

CASE IN POINT, if VS.NET was so good, why is every single newsgroup and even
INETA still use the IBuySpy portal or DotNetNuke? They sites essentially
have no creative programming and these site are essentially identical to
each other. All one has to do is look at the DesktopDefault.aspx page and
you know exactly what that site is capable of. Furthermore, because there
are nothing new, one cannot even tell if they have really been tested in a
business environment when things change and reliability is paramount.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. These are reference
implementations for purposes of teaching ASP.NET. As reference
implementations they don't change often, by definition.

Nevertheless, after more than 2.5 years we are now seeing more and more
sites....but one has got to ask how they are really done....But come 2.5
years later...Mr. BILL is right, DOT NET is SLOWWWWWW GOING.

I'm here to answer how they are really done, if you want to ask. It sounds
like you have had some bad experiences with object-oriented development in
the past.

I don't have information on .NET growth rates. Google on "inurl:.aspx" now,
and then again in a month, divide the latter by the former, raise to the
12th power, subtract 1, and you'll have an estimate of the annual ASP.NET
growth rate. It's 15.1 million now. Ping me in a month and I'll do this for
you.

It took you guys 3 years to figure out that when you create a project you
don't add 10 new files/folders that the user has no idea what they do. You
don't add .resx files and all those folders of who know what...... I told
you this THREE (3) years ago...you finally are getting it.

Although I don't work on the VS.NET product, I'm glad you like the direction
we're moving. If you have questions about what specific files do in a new
project I'll be happy to answer.

You are still even working on ZERO touch deployment after 6
years...constantly trying to FIX what never worked.
You also GOT RID of those FRONT PAGE EXTENSIONS in Whidbey...YEAHHHH!!!!!
ONLY SIX (6) years to figure that one out.....

Amen.


Look at all the changes is Whidbey!!!! VS.NET is looking more and more like
Dreamweaver.....property nesting tag bar at the bottom, clean projects,
easier FTP......DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!, Design and Code view highlight
syncronization, leave the html code just like it is.......

Oh and there are promises of BETTER table support in Whidbey of which I have
yet to see.

THREE (3) years to figure this out after I told you again and again.....

I am again gratified that you like the direction we're moving.

Hand down the people on the dreamweaver forums have twice the number of web
pages than all of the people on microsoft newsgroups and they LOOK 1000
times better as well....plus they ACTUALLY have web sites in the first
place.......

I have no comment on this, as this seems purely a matter of opinion and
conjecture.

 

[Michel Gallant]

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool,
not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/features/profeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.

Bret,
Thanks for pointing this out clearly. I think a lot of "developers" don't understand
that they are not "graphical designers". In fact, most applications developers know
very little about proper UI design, and should not convince themselves that this is
something pickup up easily. In fact most coders, who would use VS.NET do not
think like UI designers, and never will.
Separating out code/functionality design from UI/usability design is very important.
VS.NET just has the most core raw UI elements for laying out very rudimentary
..NET functionality.
Developers are notorious for overdesign, following Microsoft's traditional lead,
with application bloat (which imo continues to be fairly prevalent at MS and its apps. ;-)

However, the "security by default" trend at Microsoft will hopefully put a
harness on that trend, realizing that numerous little-used features can be security vulnerabilities,
and should be eliminated.

- Mitch Gallant
Security MVP

 

[Guest]

ONE or TWO COMMENTS BELOW INLINE......

Bret,
Thanks for pointing this out clearly. I think a lot of "developers" don't understand
that they are not "graphical designers". In fact, most applications developers know
very little about proper UI design, and should not convince themselves that this is
something pickup up easily. In fact most coders, who would use VS.NET do not
think like UI designers, and never will.
Separating out code/functionality design from UI/usability design is very important.
VS.NET just has the most core raw UI elements for laying out very rudimentary
.NET functionality.
Developers are notorious for overdesign, following Microsoft's traditional lead,
with application bloat (which imo continues to be fairly prevalent at MS

and its apps. ;-)


YES, this OVERDESIGN and Application Bloat is SO TRUE....
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THIS OUT!!!!

Oh, while I am here, I want to point out the fallacy of the Intergrated
security model of SQL Server And Windows.

Is there something call the "Principle of the Least" where you only give
enough permissions to do what you need to do?

Yet, Microsoft is telling everyone to use Integrated Security as opposed to
SQL Server's own security just to connect to the database....

That's clearly violating the Principle of the Least by giving the System
Admin or anyone on the Windows Admin team the possible chance to access the
SQL Server, the crown jewels! ...all for the sake of convenience!!!!

The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!! Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....

By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows
side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be committed.....

Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in the same
room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected to the
Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first place.

 

[Guest]

COMMENTS INLINE BELOW.....

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool,
not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/features/profeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.

Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let me ask
you something.
How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are
going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
slightest idea of how their program will be used?

VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
"developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is a
program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
user is going to use it.

THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION
between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the
spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you
know??"

Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more
flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even better
design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......

NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to develop
in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made and
WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!

It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go to
non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill level
and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".

***
YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to
L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what the
customer wants in the first place.
***

Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
WHY!!!!!


Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in
the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.

It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants and
why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered on
time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are
are still in the "design phase of OOP"

***************************************************
OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it had
last year......
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
***************************************************


Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers...


Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says that
what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of their
failures.


Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Maybe you should mind your own business.

SysAdmin generally don't know anything about SQL Server programming, nor or
they PAID to do so.

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to
represent the windows user.

And do we need the LOCAL admin or DOMAIN admin to have access to the SQL
Server...they don't know any sql programming anyway, nor are they familiar
with the tables or the store procedures and much less the application that
uses the database anyway.

Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for.

THEN you are NOT only a SYSADMIN. IF you perform DBA tasks, you are also a
DBA. If you walk like a DBA, talk like a DBA and quack like a DBA, then you
are a DBA.

Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

Well, you know they should be all in the SAME room and with a separate
network switch from the intranet then.....

And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.

YES it is a GOOD argument as you then have a PRETTY good IDEA of who had
access then.
Did you forget, "the principle of least privilege"? that's what they taught
you in the NT security world right?

What do they teach in in security school? Each attack is a NEW, "un-thought
of" attack.

Regular user or Admin User...DOES it REALLY MATTER as this new attack will
exploit this domain relationship and get a regular user to elevate their
user rights to admin rights, accidentally or mischievously ...
This has been a successful mode of attack before.....and it can be done many
many ways......

You allow them to possibly exploit an undocumented or unknown bug in the
system..."software will always have bugs, right???"

 

[-=Chris=-]

I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:

The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!!

Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.

Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....

And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.

By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows
side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be

committed.....

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to
represent the windows user.

Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in the same
room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected to the
Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first place.

Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

 

[Guest]

Here is another example of Microsoft security.....and why Integrated
security should cause you to FEEL INSECURE...

Mail server flaw opens Exchange to spam
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5107904.html

Again and again......if it's not one thing, it's another........

Yeah, right, let's listen to Microsoft on security.......

Anyone basically can, on any given day, look up and see another flaw in
security or OOP or n-Tier....you name it, it's I.T. that doesn't know what
they are doing.....

stupid brainwashed programmers who listen to these authors, "so-called"
architects, gurus, Mr.-I-have-3+articles written-on-DevX-or-wrox, or some
..NET magazine......again and again...sitting around on a white board mapping
out UML has proven to be so failure ridden I don't know how you guys get
away with it!!!

.....Oh, wait.....you guys smoozy up with those VC's like Hummer Windblad and
their failed petstore who could not figure out that people don't want to pay
for shipping on a 50lb bag of dog food....duhhh......they could have at
least asked their mom about that!!!!

ah yes one 10page resume MBA leading another 10page resume MCSD.......

The only thing these MBA, MCSD, MVP's and gurus are good at are their
PowerPoint slides and typing their 3 and 4 letter acronyms....

Typing 3-4 letter acronyms onto a computer is not the same as typing out the
entire production code to a web app.

Example code and apps are not PRODUCTION apps....ask the
DotNetJunkies......I bet you deep down, they feel a lot different then what
they are saying.......and OOP and n-Tier are not what they are cut out to
be.......Look at the DotNetNuke re-write....shawn thinks that's the only
way...yet in his blogs he's complaining about how hard and how much time he
spent just trying to separate the data tier cleanly...and for WHAT???? to
hook up to some Access database.....all that trouble for people who want to
their database for free, yet the developer who spent all the time
programming thinks he is going to get paid for all that effort...ha ha
ha.....sooner or latter, this developer is going to learn that people who
are going to pay him something is going to pay for SQL Server....you think
people who want to use an Access database care about performance, security,
and the long term....guess again, if they don't care enough to even spend
for a $1000 copy of single client license sql server...don't you ever expect
them to pay you for n-Tier, OOP solution......

oh, but wait a second...let's let the access db get corrupted and then they
will come a running to you and then you can charge them more!!!!!, or will
they blame you........either way.....something gets a lot of downtime,
unhappy customers, and all because someone didn't stand their ground.....

Maybe you should mind your own business.

SysAdmin generally don't know anything about SQL Server programming, nor or
they PAID to do so.

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually

created

to
represent the windows user.

And do we need the LOCAL admin or DOMAIN admin to have access to the SQL
Server...they don't know any sql programming anyway, nor are they familiar
with the tables or the store procedures and much less the application that
uses the database anyway.

Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for.

THEN you are NOT only a SYSADMIN. IF you perform DBA tasks, you are also a
DBA. If you walk like a DBA, talk like a DBA and quack like a DBA, then you
are a DBA.

Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

Well, you know they should be all in the SAME room and with a separate
network switch from the intranet then.....

And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.

YES it is a GOOD argument as you then have a PRETTY good IDEA of who had
access then.
Did you forget, "the principle of least privilege"? that's what they taught
you in the NT security world right?

What do they teach in in security school? Each attack is a NEW, "un-thought
of" attack.

Regular user or Admin User...DOES it REALLY MATTER as this new attack will
exploit this domain relationship and get a regular user to elevate their
user rights to admin rights, accidentally or mischievously ...
This has been a successful mode of attack before.....and it can be done many
many ways......

You allow them to possibly exploit an undocumented or unknown bug in the
system..."software will always have bugs, right???"

I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:


Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.


And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.

committed.....

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually

created

 

[NRGeti]

This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the
board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone who
knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming manual
page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to check
it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.

 

[ozbear]

I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:


Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.

<snip>
I wouldn't get my knickers in a bunch over anything that "nospam" had
to say on just about anything.

Oz

 

[Bob Lehmann]

So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

 

[NRGeti]

Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

 

[Bob Lehmann]

You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

Let FINGER

 

[NRGeti]

Not at all. I haven't seen him since his birth. He got lost somehow.

 

[Guest]

You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles
and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you MVP's
and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs
how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid, yet
only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have a
good portion of humble pie.

 

[ozbear]

You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......

<snip>

Actually, no. You do an adequate job of that all by yourself.

Oz

 

[Bob Lehmann]

Maybe it's the "screeming" that makes people think you are a complete idiot.

Bob

 

[Guest]

The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

Dear .NET Gurus, Authors, MVP's, MCSD, Programmers, Developers, Architects,
etc.,

You are some of the most arrogant people in the world and deserve to be
treated as an upset 14-year old as that's essentially what you have been
acting like. You have no CLUE how a real business works NOR even know what
the customer wants while cramming your noses in more OOP, n-Tier books and
articles that have more failed implementations than successes. But you
don't even know that because you still think you are right just like that
14-year old who hasn't grown up and learned to admit his mistakes.

WHY YES, SCREAMING (FULL CAPS) is necessary to get through all the NOISE of
EXCUSES you guys are spouting and spinning off everyday when something goes
wrong that you try to blame others on. FULL CAPS are NECESSARY as
Programmers stop reading when they are proven wrong and spout off their
rhetoric.


Now who is the 14-year old idiot you are trying to dis-credit?

 

[Cor]

Hi Nospam,

I dont know from which country you are, in my country people from 12 talk
like this.

Cor

 

[Guest]

Wow dude, Try Decaff or a nap. And to think, I thought I was an ass.

Blanket statements are almost always a sign of a lack of knowledge or
wisdom.

And Welcome to the blocked list,
B-Bye

 

[Bob Lehmann]

You are one messed up little dude - even for a 14-year-old.

Bob Lehmann