[AccessD] Web Applications

Yes Classic ASP is still alive and well and can certainly be used to develop
web applications. And yes ASP.NET does render a lot of the server-side magic
into client-side script using javascript.

Do you need to know and understand all the javascript it renders to the
browser? Heck no. You might need to know a smattering of javascript to get
some client-side script for some tasks that cannot be handled natively by
javascript.

As far as ASP.NET being overkill I don't think so.

1. When you deploy your web application to the server, you simply have to
upload your application's DLL and ASPX page and other supporting files (CSS,
JS, etc...). With Classic ASP you need to upload all your files including
your code. With ASP.NET you don't even need to upload the code behind
because it's all packaged into a DLL. Works for me because I nobody can
"steal" my code files since I don't have to upload them to the server.

2. When you write classic ASP, the presentation layer and the code layer are
interspersed in your .ASP file. Sure, you can use include files, etc...but
it becomes a nightmare to maintain those files and it sure is time-consuming
having to wade through both the HTML, Javascript *AND* ASP code. With
ASP.NET and Visual Studio you can use the object oriented approach and have
all the intellisense at your fingertips so that you can easily find a
function or a sub in your code file which is totally separate from your HTML
code.

3. ASP.NET has field validator controls that render the appropriate
client-side script for validating required fields, range validation, custom
validation, etc...You can drag and drop the validation controls, type an
error message and specify the ASP.NET control to validate and never have to
worry about writing the same javascript code over and over again for those
situations. This facility alone makes ASP.NET better than classic ASP
development.

4. Uploading files and sending mail via SMTP are handled by ASP.NET binaries
which means that you don't need third party libraries to upload files or
send mail via your web apps which you have to do with classic ASP.

5. Postbacks are handled differently in ASP.NET compared to classic ASP. You
can check for postbacks and check if the page is valid (if there are field
validators that were triggered) very easily compared to classic ASP where
you have to write those functions yourself.

6. Viewstate is also handled better in ASP.NET. Ever wanted to preserve the
value of some control in classic ASP? You'll need to write Request.Form()
constructs for each form control you want to pass on to the next page.
ASP.NET does that for you.

7. You can write your data handler functions and compile them into a library
(DLL) and reference them in any web app so that you have a standard way of
interfacing with back-end databases. Classic ASP doesn't compile your code.
Sure you can copy and paste all those custom functions into every classic
ASP project you work on. But is that really being efficient?

So yeah...ASP.NET is overkill if you want to build a lot of the built-in
stuff yourself. :)


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:19 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Web Applications

I can do ASP and HTML with notepad proficiently, though I prefer Microsoft
Script Editor.  Javascript, I wouldn't call myself proficient.
I could muddle through something if I needed too, but I'm usually googling
when time is an issue.

As for ASP.NET being overkill....yep.  It has it's advantages, but there
isn't anything you can't do with ASP and a client side script.

Drew