I'd think a primary driver would be for the advantages of imperative code -
it's very easy to do this:
<% foreach (var customer in Model.Customers) { %>
<li><%= customer.Name %></li>
<% } %>
And requires no changes to the ASPX compilation engine. Using tags, the
current ASPX renderer would try to treat them as controls, which would mean
using repeaters to iterate, which means binding, which potentially means
events and a more complete page lifecycle - not just simple page rendering
anymore.
That said, custom View Engines for ASP.NET MVC like Spark or NVelocity can
give you a tag-like rendering syntax:
<li each="var customer in Model.Customers">${customer.Name}</li>
http://sparkviewengine.com/
Paul
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, I have a question that might extend this thread just a little bit
> more - why do we need to
> have yellow code in our mvc forms when Microsoft could have written user
> controls that generate
> the required code? Was it just so they could introduce Linq into the forms?
> Or did they just not get
> around to creating the tags?
>
> forget what the syntax of asp.net mvc is, but I think something along the
> lines of
> <mvc:Form ID="mvcForm" runat="server">
> Customer Name: <mvc:TextBox ID="mvcCustomerNameTextBox" runat="server"/>
> </mvc:Form>
> instead of the current yellow code equivalent?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24th, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Liam McLennan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The original question implied that Umbraco are rewriting for the
> > purpose of
> > moving to MVC. I think it is much more likely that they were planning
> > to
> > rewrite for other reasons and decided to take the opportunity to
> > switch to
> > the superior platform. Rewriting a large app just to switch from
> > webforms to
> > mvc would be stupid in most cases.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, silky <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Paul Glavich
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I am not arguing for or against webforms but the previous
> > argument around
> > > > battling with the likes of grid events doesn't really do the
> > argument
> > > > justice. I mean, if u don't like the grid events, use a repeaters
> > and
> > > push
> > > > whatever u want down the wire. You can still iterate over
> > collections in
> > > > webforms just like MVC and output whatever goo you like.
> > > >
> > > > It's interesting tho as the event model that you say you battle
> > so much
> > > with
> > > >
> > > > IS a compelling piece for many other devs. As always, horses for
> > courses.
> > > > I haven't seen anybody mention model binders yet which I find a
> > > compelling
> > > > yet conceptually simple piece of MVC.
> > >
> > > It's[1] only marginally different from using an object data source,
> > surely?
> > >
> > > This is what seems so useless about this entire thread.
> > >
> > > I think everyone has something different in mind when they compare
> > one
> > > thing and another.
> > >
> > > *shrug*, to quote Woody Allen (or Larry David, in character)
> > "whatever
> > > works". Doesn't make sense to be blindingly in love with one
> > > particular method or anything (exceptions are obvious [and
> > > hilarious]).
> > >
> > >
> > > > - Glav
> > >
> > > --
> > > silky
> > >
> > > http://www.programmingbranch.com/
> > >
> > > [1] Reference:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd410405.aspx
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Liam McLennan.
> >
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.eclipsewebsolutions.com.au
> >
>
>
>
>
--
Paul Stovell
