|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A client of mine has a young man who has written a web app (a CRM in dot.net
1.1) using many frames .it looks good , but is hard to maintain, passing, as it does, parameters from one frame to the next. These parameters allow the synchronization of datagirds, leading to my technically naive question (as I've only played with VS 2003 ) : are frames at all necessary in a web app ? It seems to me that eliminating them would allow for the use of simpler variables to synch the datagrids ..he tells me the use of frames speeds up data access... Barret,
Although typical not a question for this newsgroup but for the ASPNET one. Frames are not needed however give you more the change to use uniform webpages. As you wrote they are often difficult to maintain. With the version 2.0 masterpage you don't have to use frames anymore. It works almost the same, however there is a better communication between the masterpage and what are now frames, what makes it easier to maintain. I hope this helps, Cor Show quote "barret bonden" <supp***@networks-cc.com> schreef in bericht news:0lV3g.577$xW4.319@fe12.lga... >A client of mine has a young man who has written a web app (a CRM in >dot.net 1.1) using many frames .it looks good , but is hard to maintain, >passing, as it does, parameters from one frame to the next. These >parameters allow the synchronization of datagirds, leading to my >technically naive question (as I've only played with VS 2003 ) : are frames >at all necessary in a web app ? It seems to me that eliminating them would >allow for the use of simpler variables to synch the datagrids ..he tells me >the use of frames speeds up data access... > Even in 1.1 you could use dynamic control placement to avoid such things and
mae the system more maintainable. As for it speeding up the data acces .. I would love to hear a full argument with code on that, smells funny to me :) Cheers, Greg Show quote "barret bonden" <supp***@networks-cc.com> wrote in message news:0lV3g.577$xW4.319@fe12.lga... >A client of mine has a young man who has written a web app (a CRM in >dot.net 1.1) using many frames .it looks good , but is hard to maintain, >passing, as it does, parameters from one frame to the next. These >parameters allow the synchronization of datagirds, leading to my >technically naive question (as I've only played with VS 2003 ) : are frames >at all necessary in a web app ? It seems to me that eliminating them would >allow for the use of simpler variables to synch the datagrids ..he tells me >the use of frames speeds up data access... > Would sound like he has two or more large datasets on screen at once.
Frames would then allow you to only reload one dataset at a time. Might also have gained a lot of bloat on the viewstate, datagrids have that drawback as they don't allow you to selectivly disable the viewstate for the data but maintain the rest of the datagrid's viewstate for selection, etc. On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:37:54 -0400, "Greg Young [MVP]" <DruckDruckGo***@hotmail.com> wrote: Show quote >Even in 1.1 you could use dynamic control placement to avoid such things and >mae the system more maintainable. > >As for it speeding up the data acces .. I would love to hear a full argument >with code on that, smells funny to me :) > >Cheers, > >Greg >"barret bonden" <supp***@networks-cc.com> wrote in message >news:0lV3g.577$xW4.319@fe12.lga... >>A client of mine has a young man who has written a web app (a CRM in >>dot.net 1.1) using many frames .it looks good , but is hard to maintain, >>passing, as it does, parameters from one frame to the next. These >>parameters allow the synchronization of datagirds, leading to my >>technically naive question (as I've only played with VS 2003 ) : are frames >>at all necessary in a web app ? It seems to me that eliminating them would >>allow for the use of simpler variables to synch the datagrids ..he tells me >>the use of frames speeds up data access... >> > Yes viewstate overhead I might be able to buy ... but data access?
Show quote "Chris Chilvers" <kee***@dynafus.com> wrote in message news:ga3852d2jtkfsr0maoaotghil9m8sreru2@4ax.com... > Would sound like he has two or more large datasets on screen at once. > Frames would then allow you to only reload one dataset at a time. Might > also have gained a lot of bloat on the viewstate, datagrids have that > drawback as they don't allow you to selectivly disable the viewstate for > the data but maintain the rest of the datagrid's viewstate for > selection, etc. > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:37:54 -0400, "Greg Young [MVP]" > <DruckDruckGo***@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Even in 1.1 you could use dynamic control placement to avoid such things >>and >>mae the system more maintainable. >> >>As for it speeding up the data acces .. I would love to hear a full >>argument >>with code on that, smells funny to me :) >> >>Cheers, >> >>Greg >>"barret bonden" <supp***@networks-cc.com> wrote in message >>news:0lV3g.577$xW4.319@fe12.lga... >>>A client of mine has a young man who has written a web app (a CRM in >>>dot.net 1.1) using many frames .it looks good , but is hard to maintain, >>>passing, as it does, parameters from one frame to the next. These >>>parameters allow the synchronization of datagirds, leading to my >>>technically naive question (as I've only played with VS 2003 ) : are >>>frames >>>at all necessary in a web app ? It seems to me that eliminating them >>>would >>>allow for the use of simpler variables to synch the datagrids ..he tells >>>me >>>the use of frames speeds up data access... >>> >>  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics