Re: ASP .NET 2.0 Unanswered questions...

Juan,

See, now this is where I think you've let your emotions get the better of
you. You are writing this post in such a way that makes it sound like I've
said or done something I haven't.

I asked you to test and your initial reply was, in effect, I don't like
code-behind, I don't use it. How am I supposed to know that *after* you
wrote this you began preparing to test?!

I think I've been nothing but reasonable here (and logical too) and in your
last few posts you seem more and more upset towards me when all I've done is
present more evidence and logic to support my case. This has absolutely
zero to do with respect and if you think it does, you are reading things
into my posts that are not there. I've have already tried both methods, so
why do I need to do more tests? I'll stand by my results. You were the one
that said you hadn't done one of the methods, so it seemed logical that you
do the other.

Unfortunately, I can't do *more* tests as I have removed VS .NET 2003 from
my machine in favor of VS 2005 (hence my posts on .NET 2.0). But, I will
stand by the 100's of applications I've written with 2003. I'll also stand
by the documentation I've provided. It's great that you and Dino are good
friends, call him up and ask him to explain page 860 to you. Especially how
you can shadow copy one file that contains potentially numerous classes into
numerous files that contain one class each. You are right about the
Global.asax assembly, but since this file/class is not required to be in a
project (nor is it a page), I haven't been including it in my discussion.

As was stated earlier in the thread, can you provide any documentation to
support your results? I can and I have.

As I said before, for me, the issue is closed.




"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eO4PTe3DIHA.748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
re:
!> For me anyway, this case is closed.
!>When you take this passage in conjunction

Except...it's not closed.
You are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

How do you account for my test results ?

Btw, Dino and I are close friends...and have shared
many conversations about ASP.NET architecture.

Why don't you write a test app we can use to test, like I did ?
Better yet, I'll make it real easy for you.

Attached are two zip files : test.1.1.zip and test1.1a.zip.

test.1.1.zip has the VS 2003 project with webform1.aspx,
generated by VS 2003, plus the aspx file I created ( default.aspx ).

Run that project in your VS 2003...and see what happens.
( You'll have to an app named "test1.1" and call it via localhost ).

test1.1a.zip has the directories and files in the ASP.NET Temporary Files
directory.
Please count trhge DLLs. There's 4 of them.

There's a DLL for global.asax ( lo4c7e-d.dll )
there's a DLL for the project ( test1.1.DLL )
and one DLL for each of the two pages ( 7bcr9k7f.dll for Default.aspx and
otmtuem6.dll for webform1.aspx )

You can count the DLLs...and post what you found.
Anybody else who's got VS 2003 on their dev box can do that, too.

You can also repro the results with the files in test.1.1.zip
...and verify that what I'm saying reports accurately what occurs.

Anybody else who's got VS 2003 on their dev box can do that, too.

re:
!> I don't think this is a matter of respect, Juan.

It *is* a matter of respect. You accused me of being "unwilling to test".
Now, we will see if *you* are willing to test the files I *did*
create...and post the results.

re:
!> I think it's a matter of deductive reasoning and facts.

Nah. It's a matter of creating a test...and seeing what actually occurs.

I did that. We'll now see if *you* are willing to do it, too, or whether
you will
just continue to infer conclusions, instead of testing and reporting
actual results.

For all I know, you won't be able to repro the results.

In that case, the only logical conclusion is that your
VS 2003 and my VS 2003 are configured differently.

I doubt that, since I haven't configured anything to do with VS 2003's
compilation model.

Have *you* done that?
Are you extrapolating your personal configuration, projecting it to all
cases ?




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23Tz$yK3DIHA.4772@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please, have some respect for me.

I'm sorry if you got some impression that I didn't have respect for your
comments, but I had asked you several messages ago what your experiences
were with the straight code-behind model and your reply was (I felt) just
argumentitive (I don't code that way, I don't like code-behind, etc.).
Those comments don't really have anything to do with what we're
discussing
and when you tell me that I'm grasping at straws but yet you put up that
kind of roadblock, it seems to me that you just don't want to be wrong.

I've told you that for five years now, I've used the code-behind model
exclusively and that for 5 years now, I've seen the single assembly
scenario
100% of the time. Rory has said the same thing. I'll add to this that I
have been teaching VS .NET 2003 since it came out and have never once
seen
any student encounter the multiple assembly scenario (we use only the
code-behind model as it is the VS .NET 2003 default and my clients want
nTier application architecture taught). I've even referenced an article
that describes this as being the designed behavior.

Since this topic has occupied much of my day, I've now been resolved to
proving my case...

I'll add to my evidence a passage from, what I and many others consider
to
be the definitive guide on VB .NET --> "Programming Microsoft Visual
Basic
.NET (version 2003)" by Dino Espisito (pg. 860), which I have included a
screen-shot of attached to this message. I'll also apologize to Rory as
he
was indeed correct that the temporary .dll is a shadow copy of the ONE
assembly in the project's /bin folder.

When you take this passage in conjunction with the fact that VS .NET 2003
creates only ONE assembly file and places it in the project's /bin
folder,
you can see how this ONE assembly is shadow copied to IIS.

I don't think this is a matter of respect, Juan. I think it's a matter
of
deductive reasoning and facts.

For me anyway, this case is closed. Thanks to everyone in the thread!

-Scott









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ASP .NET 2.0 Unanswered questions...
    ... you'd have such disregard for documentation. ... There's a DLL for global.asax ... I don't think this is a matter of respect, ... I've told you that for five years now, I've used the code-behind model ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: ASP .NET 2.0 Unanswered questions...
    ... Wow Juan. ... There's a DLL for global.asax ... I think it's a matter of deductive reasoning and facts. ... I've told you that for five years now, I've used the code-behind model ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: ASP .NET 2.0 Unanswered questions...
    ... can you provide any documentation to support your results? ... upset towards me when all I've done is present more evidence and logic to support my case. ... I think it's a matter of deductive reasoning and facts. ... I've told you that for five years now, I've used the code-behind model ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: test if a string is a valid number?
    ... syntax of the language, requiring NO assembly code? ... the massive VB dll EACH TIME a number is checked is grotesque, ... have performance data on this? ... I always say "Performance doesn't matter until ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Windows Mobile dev. with .NET
    ... needed modules are present or not. ... It's not simply a matter of a DLL being ... That's just not a realistic scenario. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework)
Loading