With this framework being predominantly a Microsoft framework I was wondering if in the future it would be worthwhile building a template for Razor Web Pages?
Not looked into it too much myself but I would imagine there would be some effort involved to take the current Abp Controller logic into some sort of an Abp Page base class.
Just asking for people personal opinion - no right or wrong here :-)
It's a big effort for us to convert all templates (especially for asp.net zero).
We still want to wait for Razor Pages approach to be more mature and accepted by the community. Then we will have a decision about that.
So, for now, no clear answer :)
For an upcoming project, I am looking into MVP as an option over MVC. I am highly familiar with and like MVC, and am merely trying to see if I will gain anything using MVP.
What I gather about MVP is that it uses the ASP.Net view engine/MVC# (which I don't particularly like) that uses the ViewState - adding a bunch of extra content to a rendered web page, and not built in routing functionality (can be written in separately into the Global.asax).
MVC/Razor on the other hand, renders very clean HTML.
Certain articles, such as this one seem to lean towards using MVP for multiple views, however in light of MVC3 with jQuery Mobile, there are some fantastic things that can be accomplished with this MVC.
How do these compare to what is currently available with MVP? What are some pros/cons or potential pitfalls of using MVP over MVC?
I am also considering using an existing MVP application to expedite development time.
I know you will cringe at the following, but looking for options:
While this app offers all the required features, if implementing this solution, how difficult is it to tie in additional MVC applications (I know that looks ugly)? If this was something that we had to consider (combining both), would it be best to wrap the application in MVC (routing) and have the MVP app contained inside?
The reason for this is a staggered feature update process, where the requirement is to implement a new feature (which is built using the MVC framework; the rest of the system is not). Future plans are to completely change the current framework to either MVC or MVP.
Thanks.
You seem to be confusing patterns with frameworks here.
Both MVC and MVP are design patterns, ASP.net MVC and MVC# on the other hand are frameworks that implement the MVC/MVP design patterns.
There is a massive confusion and lots of conflicting information on the web about the difference between MVC and MVP patterns and infact Martin Fowler the guy who made MVP popular since "retired" the pattern in favour of 2 new ones. See here
Both patterns are there to aid separation of concerns that is for sure, but other than that there really isnt a lot of difference between them, the only thing I have found is that MVC has a controller per widget on the screen where as MVP is one per screen although even this rule is violated if you have a complex screen. I am still unsure and use the terms interchangeably myself.
The one thing I see over and over is that in MVP the view is responsible for creating the presenter, however this is not part of the original design. It appears to have arisen from the fact that older web frameworks such as asp.net webforms were page centric. You had no way of changing this and so it was the page (view) that created the presenter. Basically the framework is getting in the way of the pattern and so a hack was made to shoe horn it in. Unfortunately this seems to have become the defacto way of describing MVP.
Basically my wall of text above is trying to say that if you want to do MVC properly use a framework designed to do it, ASP.net MVC is a good choice, it is part of the MS stack, well supported (MVC# hasnt been updated since 2008) and if you are already happy with it the loss of productivity trying to learn something else isnt really worth it imo
I'm trying to find a CMS that can be incorporated into an existing MVC3 app.
I've played with N2, and can't get the damn thing to work in VS2010 or with .NET 4.
Umbarco doesn't appear to support MVC yet
Orchard looks great, but wants to own the whole application.
DNN is just a mess.
Any other brilliant solutions?
Post-mortem Dec 2011
This is an old post, but I thought I'd share my experiences with Orchard, and why I decided to go a different direction.
NHibernate
Aside from the very large number of transactions per page (literally dozens in some cases), each and every query was executed using sp_executesql. While not quite as bad as using Exec(), this rubs me the wrong way. Currently, my database is locked down so that applications can only execute stored procedures - that is, they can't perform select/update/delete, list entities such as tables, get any metadata, etc. This is a requirement for tier-wise unit testing, compile-time verification of the database, security and encapsulation of database logic from the application code.
Source Deployment
Orchard requires that the entire source for your site (views, .cs source files, etc) is deployed to the production server. The sheer number of source files that need to deployed boggles the mind.
Integration with an existing application
The manner in which Orchard is structured effectively requires it to be the point of entry for the web application. This means that you're going to spend some time modifying and reimplementing your app to get it to play nice with Orchard.
Conclusion
There were quite a few other issues that I encountered, but those are the highlights. Individually, each of those could have been a deal breaker. Together, they removed Orchard as a viable solution.
I'm now evaluating Telerik's Sitefinity. It's not MVC, which saddens me, but:
The admin interface is extremely powerful. Aside from a master page and some stylesheets that I put together in VS, we've been able to handle all of the layout via Sitefinity's admin tools.
I mean, it's really powerful. You can use the admin interface to edit the admin interface. Think about that for a minute.
Widgets are implemented as ASP.NET user controls. Most of my existing controls just dropped right in with zero modifications.
Database access is handled via Telerik's OpenAccess ORM. While Sitefinity doesn't natively use stored procedures, OpenAccess fully supports using them for all operations. Also, according to Telerik, OpenAccess does not, in any way, rely on reflection, which provides significant performance benefits in heavy-load apps.
There are several solutions available for using Razor markup within widgets, which is one of the great benefits (to me) of using MVC. Also, I've been told that native Razor support is in active development.
It's not free. In reality, however, a few grand barely breaks the noise floor in terms of development time.
Super crazy fast. Startup time is a bit on the slow side, but once it's running, it's very quick.
Built on top of Telerik's awesome, proven RAD controls.
Apologies for the long post. Hopefully this will be helpful.
You might find these projects useful. You can probably model a simple CMS based on one of their projects.
MvcCms
MvcMS
Atomic CMS
Mytrip.mvc
Try Web Noodles..The new CMS developed using mvc3. WebNoodles.It is easy to integrate .But the thing is it is still in beta stage..But you must give it a try ...
We are planning to start a new Sale Management System which will have about 12 subsystem.
We will use MSSQL2008 as a database.
We have got custom framework for ASP.NET that was built about 3 years ago which is not MVC type... And i am planning to move to MVC2 Framework.
My Questions are
What will be the big advantages of moving
to MVC2?
How about the learning curve for MVC2 and will there be any good
guided study flow?
We are planning to use Multirow (Instead of Grid View), inputman (For function key event and validation) from grapecity and ActiveReport.. Will they be easily fit into MVC2 Framework?
Well, you have some good questions, but I think you have abused the question asking here. You will find that people will be more apt to answer if you divide your bullets into their own questions.
Advantages of MVC? Well pick up any MVC book and find those. IMHO however it lets you get to more pure views. It allows for separation of the main components of MVC (Model View and Controller) which allows you to test them. For me its more than that. I like how it allows for more control over what is in the view. I get so sick of the ASP.NET rendered controls that break javascript.
Learning curve? Well that all depends on how well you know HTML, Javascript, AJAX, and JSON. If you dont know them well at all, you will have a bigger curve. Now AJAX and JSON are not a must, but they will make it work better. JQuery is MVCs best friend, learn it and live it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am writing a comparison between 3 technology options for building our new website:
Wordpress
Drupal
An MVC framework
The boss is sure we should use Wordpress, but the site will be big, with many sections, subsections, pages, and complicated templates.
I'm finding it easy to compare WP + Drupal, but not so easy to state the additional advantages (over Drupal) of using an MVC framework.
So far I have:
Custom data storage, content types, semantics
APIs / REST
Separation of logic / UI
Convention, code structure
(Obviously some of the benefits will be different depending on the type of project. In this case it will be a large portal for a museum, with potential for some social stuff for visitors)
It's difficult to compare a CMS (e.g., Drupal, WordPress) with an MVC framework because they are in different categories.
To specifically answer your question about the advantage of an MVC framework over a CMS, the advantage of an MVC framework is simply that it allows you to design the exact web app you need from the ground up.
As for your particular situation:
Using an existing CMS such as WordPress or Drupal would be an excellent idea if they fit your needs. It avoids reinventing the wheel, saves you time, and CMSs can be quite user-friendly (to varying degrees). If you plan to delegate the task of content updates to a non-technical user, then it might be prudent to choose a novice-friendly CMS rather than spinning your own with an MVC framework, possibly resulting in an app that requires more technical expertise to maintain.
If, however, you envision that the website will require a lot of custom business logic that would be difficult to implement within the constraints of a CMS, then you might need to use an MVC framework.
Thanks everyone for your answers. I made the case for using a Framework or Drupal, but it was decided that we should go with Wordpress, or at least start building on Wordpress and see how it goes.
FWIW here are the notes I came up with:
WORDPRESS / MU
http://wordpress.org/
http://mu.wordpress.org/
A personal publishing tool, blogging platform
PHP +
Many available widgets +
Multi-author support / workflow +
Social features (BuddyPress) +
Integration (BBPress etc) +
Easy, common +
Simple UI +
Able to manage multiple blogs (with WordPress MU) +
Only 2 content types (post or page) -
Not a real "CMS" / blog mentality -
Inflexible heirachy (no sections) -
Limited semantics -
Limited template choices for authors -
Messy code -
Security / exploits -
DRUPAL
http://drupal.org/
A content management framework, CMS construction kit, tools to build sites. For 'non programmers' to build websites, building blocks
PHP +
Made for big sites / portals +
Social features built in (each user has own profile/log, extensible) +
Page type selection/config by authors (block system) +
Scope for structured data / semantics +
Multiple content types (press releases, news articles, blog posts, etc.) +
Good community / tools +
Blank canvas +
Many features +
Good image handling +
Complex UI -
"Black box", very abstract code, learning curve! -
Customizing / theming is difficult -
FRAMEWORK
It allows you to design the exact web app you need from the ground up
Extensible +
Control of semantics, data storage +
APIs / Data / REST / Web services +
Current, modern tools, cutting edge +
Separation of logic/presentation (MVC design pattern) +
Convention - structured code, workflow +
Reuse/combine content +
Allows development of multiple UIs without touching business logic codebase +
Robust API / standards / patterns +
DRY (don't repeat yourself) +
Learning curve -
Need to design a custom UI -
Overkill? (depending on goals) -
You can't really compare WP or Drupal and MVC framework. What you can do is to decide whether to use an existing content-management system or roll out your own and compare ROI, TCO, development cost, etc.
As someone who has worked on various home rolled CMS systems for the best part of the last decade my advice is don't roll your own. If you have some unique application then MVC is a nice way to code up web applications, but it's ease won't counterbalance the thousands of man hours spend building and millions of page hits of testing the OSS ones have.
Drupal is not only a nice CMS system but also is a pretty good framework for building bespoke web functionality, so you get a lot for free and only have to spend time working on what is unique to your site. (after you have learnt how to code on drupal systems)
You can build a pretty extensible site based on WP or Drupal, but you may run into design limitations set based on what the frameworks were designed to do. Drupal/WP are content management systems at the core, so if you're not managing content, you're not using the framework effectively. If you find yourself building more and more code to get around these limitations, then you have cause to build from a scratch or use a lightweight framework.
I'm currently building a site with CakePHP MVC framework and I highly recommend it. IMHO, it satisfies all of your advantages.
Drupal has MVC Layer, check out Drupal Prometheus # http://www.drupalprometheus.org. It has most of the features of a modern MVC framework plus the power of Drupal CMS. We recently started using it on a project for our client.
The flexibility of a CMS has a limit, though with Drupal that limit is getting smaller. There is a learning curve to accomplish what you want, and it might not be the most elegant solution if you have to fudge it together with existing extensions. Of course you can always expand the functionality of any CMS yourself, but that may take more time than using a good framework in the first place.
I had this same dilemna recently, and after trying with Drupal, eventually went with the CodeIgniter MVC PHP framework instead. Probably worth investing a few days with a CMS first, to investigate if it's possible. If you then decide it'll be too difficult, use a MVC framework instead.
Microsoft ASP MVC (for example) is a framework for building your websites on, Drupal is a content management system where you "design" your pages but don't have to write any code.
I would say the advantage of using an MVC framework to roll your own instead of using WP or Drupal are:
You only code what you need. WP and Drupal are gonna have lots of stuff you don't need sitting on your server.
The developers understand the whole codebase because they've written it from scratch - making it easier to maintain later.
WP is a big codebase (I don't know about Drupal) as soon as you require something that isn't supported by either CMS you are going to have to dig around a lot of code.
Wordpress' separation of logic / UI sucks - I mean really sucks.
More flexibility. CMSs are great as you don't try to make them do something they weren't intended to do - then they become a pain.
If you are going to push for an MVC framework then you need to look carefully at which you would choose - they are not created equal. Some of them will place restrictions on your code and website layout in the same way a CMS would.
I guess it's really down to how complex the requirements are and how well a CMS or framework will meet those. For relatively simple content delivery it may be an option to write your own lightweight MVC and build upon that.
I would advise you strongly against WordPress, it is wonderful for sites with some static pages and one blog/news section, but I made a bilingual product website based on WP 2.2 and it was a major PITA with lots of hacking and writing database-reaching code into the template to make it possible.
Now I have been developing in Drupal and it is really better for larger projects (although it takes more time to set up a simple blog compared to WP) - it has wonderful modular architecture that allowed me to solve any request/problem so far by writing a module instead of hacking the core.
As for MVC/Drupal: have look what Drupal does, if you can get your result by modifying Drupal, then it is great and will save you a lot of time by not having to code the usual stuff (user registration, input sanitization, robust form handling and validation, theming infrastructure, storage abstraction, web services abstraction layer (Services module) and so on...).
Against Drupal: inherently slow, due to modular (I'm rendering a list of items, let's call all modules that implement theme_list to find out if they want to modify it) architecture, so if you are making next twitter, get a fast MVC framework instead. And caching of content for registered users still needs lot of work to be effective (a tagged cache should be in core), so sites when users are usually logged in can be slow.
I reckon Drupal is MVC. Drupal uses a theming system which is your views and a menu system which is your controller. The modules are your models. Sure, the menu is fragmented into various modules but it's still basically MVC right?