Re: Compile ASP.Net 2.0

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Well, that was well known in v1.x to be something that could change in future releases, so hard coding the ID in your javascript was improper design in v1.x. That's why there was a ClientID property in v1.x.

But point taken. I agree that not all apps will just magically work in v2.0 if they were working on v1.x. Anyone would certainly need to do thorough testing before moving their app live under v2.0.

-Brock
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ballen

Yes,
The clienID has changed.  There is no longer an underscore starting
the
prefix of a control in a user control. Maybe it is more Firefox
friendly.
"Brock Allen" wrote:

So are you saying this is an area that changed between v1.x and v2.0?

-Brock
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ballen

Brock,
The autopost back feature in ASP.Net 1.1 doesn't seem to be
compatible
with
Firefox.  The problem seems to arise when you have a user control:
http://www.hardwarehank.com/search/default.aspx?t=cat
I had to implement my own autopostback in order to support Firefox
Arne
"Brock Allen" wrote:

So if you don't want to do a conversion at the source code level,
then I'd suggest just moving the code to a ASP.NET 2.0 app and let
it run (so no recompile). ASP.NET 2.0 is supposed to be 100%
backwards compat with ASP.NET 1.x, but the problems you might run
into is if you're using a framework API that's specifically not
backwards compatible in 2.0. These APIs are covered in the list of
breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to 2.0.

As for the IDs and how they are generated in the client, as long as
you don't hard code the IDs in your client side javascript you're
ok. You shouldn't have done that in 1.x anyway... the ClientID
property was there in 1.x for that purpose.

-Brock
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ballen

Brock Allen,
No I don't want to convert my project to VS 2005 this week. That
will
come
later. First I would like to know if I have any issues with
ASP.Net
2.0. I
have issues with user controls. The name and ID that ASP.Net
returns
to the
browser has changed from 1.1 to 2.0. Sometimes I need to access
these
names
directly with javascript and sometimes I need these name at the
server.
Arne
"Brock Allen" wrote:

ASP.NET 1.x app shouldn't need to be recompiled -- in theory it
should run fine under a 2.0 configuration. If you need/want to
recompile and you use VS.NET, then open your VS.NET 2003 project
with VS.NET 2005 and it should convert the project. Once you've
done that (and sorted any problems) then you can precompile with
aspnet_compiler.exe or the Build->Publish menu pick in VS.NET. If
your ASP.NET 1.x app didn't use VS.NET to compile, then you can
just deploy it as-is and let the demand compile take care of
things, or again run aspnet_compiler.exe to precompile.

-Brock
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ballen

I am porting a website to ASP.net 2.0. Temporarily I compile
with Visual Studio 2003 and deploying to ASP.net 2.0. How do I
compile my website under ASP.Net 2.0? I know it can compile each
page as I touch it. During the beta there used to be something
like mywebsite.com/compile.??? that you could run. Does it still
exist?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to pass information, classes between forms in Windows Application mode [ FINALLY!]
    ... In a WinForms app generated by Visual Studio, ... A constructor in my "book" is the stuff that appears in public ... wouldn't compile as the appropriate constructor signature hasn't been ... declarations, it will compile. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: CF faster than MFC?
    ... MFC and basic Win32 compile to machine code at compile time. ... it's possible to write an MFC app that is slower than a CF ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer)
  • Re: MDE and runtime
    ... but at this point I may be sending the app to clients with nothing more ... I have Access 2003 with VB Tools, so I have no way to compile to an earlier ... reference sits in the ...Office10 folder. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.devtoolkits)
  • Re: Nice...Maybe CodeGear should switch to a Linux webserver and PHP
    ... but native code is not necessarily faster and can actually be slower than JITed code when you are doing redundant processing (as in a server app). ... You compile your code for the least common denominator, Say you compile on a 32 bit Intel platform. ... But as the application continues to call similar routines, your code may do some caching, but the good JIT will not only compile these routines relative to the hardware but will cache these repetitive processes and will start inlining the subsequent calls. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: From VC6 to .NET 2 questions
    ... Of course you will need other libraries, and these are most often done as DLLs. ... one app which has been compiled in VS.NET and is known to run on Win98, ... >used by VC6 developers and I was looking for the same NG frequented by VC7/8 ... void-returning methods, not LRESULT-returning methods, and your code won't compile if the ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)