Archive for the ‘ASP.NET’ Category

Site Update: New Resume, Contact, Reviews, and Reading Lists Sections

November 8th, 2009

This site now sports a ResumeContact MeReviews, and Reading Lists section.

If you’re reading this from an RSS feed, then the changes looks like this:

Navigation changes on my site

These new sections make use of the services I created earlier – my resume content is pulled directly from LinkedIn via my Resume service, the Reading Lists and Reviews are being pulled from Amazon via my Amazon service, and I’m still working on a personalized greeting module which will make use of my Whois service.

Now, when I update my resume on LinkedIn, add a new item to my Amazon wishlist, or write a new Review on Amazon the content is updated within this site and indexed by the Google.

It took longer than expected to get these new pages up and running – mostly due to a couple false starts. You see, I’m running this site on Windows shared hosting which unfortunately doesn’t give me many options – sure, sure, I could purchase another hosting account, but developers are like freak’n MAcGyver we like working within ridiculous constraints. It’s all about the challenge! Anyways, I first tried using Ruby on Rails on shared hosting (fail), then tried using PHP on Trax (fail), and finally reverted to ASP.NET MVC. While ASP.NET MVC is heads and tails more fun than Web Forms / Classic ASP.NET, the impedance mismatch between strongly typed objects and web languages (JavaScript, CSS, XHTML) is still annoying. Thankfully the MVC Contrib project solves some of these pains, however it can’t solve them all.

My next steps with this site are to: finish the greeting module, update the layout (drop the WordPress theme), and finish a Github / Google Code repo widget (kind of like this one) for the sidebar.

Contribute, view, or download the openly available source code here.

Don’t Write Frameworks For Dummies

February 5th, 2009

Eric Evans offers this piece of advice:

Don’t write frameworks for dummies. [Frameworks designed by organizations] that assume some developers are not smart enough … are likely to fail because they underestimate the difficulty of … development. … This attitude also poisons the relationship between [the developers and framework designer]. – Eric Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software

Evans goes on to make the point that there’s a fine line between designing for dummies, and providing useful encapsulation / abstraction. I found this advice interesting because I had been wrestling with whether the ASP.NET AJAX Framework is for Dummies.

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, AJAX, ASP.NET, ASP.NET AJAX, Musings Tags:

Some Design Up Front is Good

December 18th, 2008

Like a horse with blinders on, avoiding some degree of Big Design Up Front (BDUF) can force your team and project into tunnel vision, because… If you don’t look at what you’re building in its entirety, it is harder to see the big picture, to have to that ah-hah moment that leads to a break through, to maintain conceptual integrity, or have a successful project.

I worked on a project where we attempted evolutionary design (avoiding Big Design Up Front) while taking an Agile approach. We used Continuous Integration, and Test Driven Development. Looking back, our attempt at trying to avoid Big Design Up Front was fatal for our project’s success and probably our biggest mistake. The funny thing is, the only reason we avoided BDUF was because it seemed non-Agile (note the capital ‘A‘ in ‘Agile’ read Yegge’s post Good Agile, Bad Agile for the reference). As a development team we were inexperienced Agile (eXtreme Programming) teenagers and somewhere along the way we exchanged our brains for dogma.

eXtreme Programming [is at odds with] “Big Design, Up Front” (BDUF) _ Because “Ya Ain’t Gonna Need It” (YAGNI) … [but this is often] taken as permission to not do any planning – Gerard Meszaros’ Alberta TechFest slide deck ’07

In the past Big Design Up Front (BDUF) was associated with large inflexible architectural solutions that are designed upfront (before development begins) – like the waterfall methodology. However; BDUF (like most techniques / methodologies / tools) are quite useful when used with a sprinkle of common sense and moderation. BDUF can be a productive lightweight tool for fleshing out the high level overview of a system. It is important to note that I’m not advocating Big Architectural Design Up Front which is often composed of reams of documents, UML, ERDs, diagrams, and other unneeded artifacts. Instead I’m advocating for paper based story boards, wire frames, paper prototypes, user stories – anything that is easy to create, destroy, and recreate. These techniques provide the foundation of the final product, they start to verbalize the common product goal and can start to draw out the language, metaphors, and model that will eventually compose the project.

Avoiding some Design Up Front was a mistake for our project. As a team we were trying to cope with the complexities of our domain under very tight deadlines. Our code became increasingly brittle, we had overlooked obvious shared functionality that a high level overview would have fleshed out. At the same time we had segregated our application into sprint sized silos with no clear relationships – each sprint was essentially a two week tunnel, and disconnected.

Without some form of BDUF it was difficult to:

  • maintain conceptual integrity, a common goal, a consistent user interface
  • estimate the whole product cost
  • have a successful project

We should have headed Steve McConnell’s words:

people were claiming,  “I don’t have to do requirements or design because I’m using object-oriented programming.” That was just an excuse. Most of those people weren’t really doing object-oriented programming-they were hacking, and the results were predictable, and poor. Right now, people are saying “I don’t have to do requirements or design because I’m doing agile development.” Again, the results are easy to predict, and poorSteve McConnell, Code Complete

Or perhaps Martin Fowler’s suggestion:

the planned design approach has been around since the 70s, and lots of people have used it. It is better in many ways than code and fix evolutionary design. But it has some faults. – Martin Fowler, Is Design Dead?

Not doing some Design Up Front is probably another excuse for being sloppy, but what do you think?

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: AJAX, ASP.NET, Musings, Personal Tags:

MVC is a Welcome Addition to ASP.NET, but…. MVC Frameworks, like Ruby on Rails are More Mature

November 26th, 2008

The Model View Controller (MVC) pattern is a great addition to ASP.NET. The MVC pattern was first described in 1979 by the SmallTalk community – again, those crazy SmallTalk guys!

Today Wikipedia lists 80 different web frameworks that use MVC – with Java and PHP topping the list for the languages with the most MVC web frameworks. MVC enforces a separation of responsibilities: Markup / CSS / JavaScript, Domain Objects / Containers, and Actions / Controls are broken up into their respective directories. In addition MVC provides the ability to test most of your code and is more intuitive with how the web works (REST like, based on URIs, plays nicer with the browser, and not solely dependent on the POST).

Finding good resources specifically for ASP.NET MVC is impossible at this time, but the books covering Ruby on Rails (RoR) are invaluable. RoR has been around since 2005, it uses the same basic MVC approach, similar routing, similar control structure, has a mature community, a large collection of plug-ins, and well established tools (anyone claiming that ASP.NET MVC can’t do what WebForms can, should look to Rails as an example). Gasp! It’s almost like ASP.NET MVC has copied Rails!! :)

Anyhow; the more I learn about Rails and Ruby, the more I realized that the communities like RoR (SmallTalk, and even some of the PHP world) are years ahead of the .NET community.

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, ASP.NET, ASP.NET MVC, RoR Tags:

Winforms / Webforms Can Make You Obsolete: Framework or Metaphor Lock-in is a Liability For Your Career

October 13th, 2008

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the ASP.NET Webform / Winform metaphor – I moved to ASP.NET from ASP 3.0 / PHP with no proper Windows development experience. The Webform / Winform metaphor was alien, but the code behind model and the ability to re-use controls drew me in, while the Webform metaphor became a tolerated evil. Today ASP.NET MVC and the announcement that Microsoft has embraced jQuery keeps me interested.

As developers, limiting ourselves to a single metaphor, framework, or programming language is a liability to our career. In order to remain employable and engaged with our work, we need to understand the higher level concepts surrounding our chosen development arena – if you’re working in the webspace this means knowing CSS, JavaScript, HTML, and more than one server-side language. Then beyond technologies and languages we should be looking at transcending principals like design patterns, and good design practices.

identifying with anything so strongly that it starts to give you emotional reaction is really bad. You never know when your language is going to be obsolete or … your favorite framework is going to be replaced. … I would love to see everybody learn a bunch of languages because it does make you a better programmer. … Most people will never switch languages. – Steve Yegge, stackoverflow podcast #25 

How To Display Your Amazon Reviews and Wish List (on your site) Using Amazon’s Web Services

October 6th, 2008

If you’ve ever landed on Amazon then you’re probably familiar with their reviews and wish lists. Amazon provides access to these items (and many-many more) through their extensive web services – the Amazon web services can be complex and overwhelming when all you want is a review list and a single user specific wish list. For this site I wanted to pull in my reviews and wish list – displaying them alongside my blog. It’s fair to note, that user reviews are available via an RSS feed (but this feed doesn’t include all the details I wanted) and the wish list page still doesn’t provide an RSS feed. So a custom Amazon web service request was in order.

Let me try to make this story short.

If you want to request your reviews and your wish list you need the following:

Once you have a wish list or review, you then need to:

Once you’ve collected all those bits, you need to:

  • Checkout and download the source code for the project and build the assembly or download the pre-compiled assembly.
  • Add the assembly reference to your project (remember, I’m assuming you’re using .NET).
  • Make a call to the application which will generate XML files containing your respective reviews and wish list.

Setting up the call would look something like this:

IAmazonRequest amazonRequest = new AmazonRequest() {
 AssociateTag = "adamkahtavaap-20",
  AWSAccessKeyId = "1MRF________MR2",
  CustomerId = "A2JM0EQJELFL69",
  ListId = "3JU6ASKNUS7B8"

IFileParameters fileParameters = new FileParameters() {
  ProductFileNameAndPath = @"Products.xml",
  ReviewFileNameAndPath = @"Reviews.xml",
  ErrorFileNameAndPath = @"Errors.xml"

IAmazonApplication amazonApplication = new AmazonApplication(amazonRequest, fileParameters);


And Viola!

If you’d like to provide some design guidance, fix a bug, or request a feature, then visit (or join) the project on Google Code.

Alternatively, you might also be interested in the LINQ To Amazon source featured in the book LINQ in Action.

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, ASP.NET, Amazon, Open Source, Software, XML Tags:

Microsoft and jQuery Finally: Thank-You!

September 28th, 2008

Microsoft is looking to make jQuery part of their official development platform … jQuery will be distributed with Visual Studio
- jQuery, Microsoft, and Nokia

Other links of interest:

I was completely blindsided by this decision.

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, AJAX, ASP.NET, ASP.NET AJAX, JavaScript Tags:

Cross Language Naming Conventions: Avoiding Verbosity In The Presentation Layer

August 29th, 2008

Most languages and technologies used in web applications come with their own unique naming conventions – which is unfortunate, but necessary, because diversity is important. Languages like JavaScript and PHP use camelCase, CSS uses-hyphenated-delimiters, and ASP.NET / Java / and the like adhere to the conventions used in their respective libraries and frameworks. Managing the different naming conventions in a web application can be difficult, but with discipline, embracing each language’s conventions can provide some great benefits.

A common mistake I’ve made in the past, was trying to make all languages adhere to a single convention. As a budding PHP / ASP developer I took the-single-convention-for-all-languages approach. In retrospect, I used this approach because I didn’t completely understand the language I was using, and in order to compensate for this lack of knowledge, I’d try to meld the languages into the mental model I understood best. This was a mistake.

Today, I find that working with the conventions of the language facilitates re-use (experts in the language understand what I’m doing), promotes portability (modules can be used across projects regardless of server-side technologies), encourages global collaboration (open source modules and plug-ins can be easily consumed and contributed to), and helps to a nurture a more maintainable application (developers from other language domains can easily maintain the application with a relatively small learning curve). Like a carpenter working with fine material, I embrace working with the grain of each language. It’s also fair to mention that breaking free from the monocultured (one-size-fits-all) approach to naming conventions provides a broader perspective, and also makes your development skills more universal – it might even open the door to different development domains in the future.

Then there’s the discussion on name length, verbosity, and using meaningful names. Steve McConnell suggests that the optimum name size for a variable or function is between 8 and 20 characters (Chapter 11, Code Complete), but with tools like ReSharper (for renaming / refactoring etc…) I find myself using names well over 30 characters. So names like GetApproveeTotalFromNamedBasket are a common occurrence in my code. However, like most things, verbosity does need balance (everything in moderation right?). In the business layer, descriptive names are a godsend – they jog my memory as I rediscover what the module I wrote last month was supposed to do. But… in the presentation layer languages (like JavaScript, CSS,  ASP.NET, or XHTML) you may want to reconsider using long descriptive names. Since verbose, long running descriptive names in the presentation layer are passed over the network and can degrade performance. Often times these verbose names are combined together – throw in ASP.NET name mangeling, start hooking in verbose CSS definitions, and then start inserting JavaScript events. All this compounds quickly and result in large page payloads filled with elements like the following:

<div id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolderForAllTheBestImprotantContent
<a onclick="LinkButtonClick_ThankYouForTakingTheTimeToReadThis();" 
 class="LinkFormatingCssClass SelectedLinkFormatingCssClass" 
 ,'')">Mark As Favorite </a> 

Note: That mess of code above would fire a JavaScript event then an ASP.NET event. It’s the result of placing an ASP.NET LinkButton, inside a Repeater, inside a Panel, inside a Masterpage, and adding a JavaScript event along with some CSS. We can see that using long names in the presentation layers results in a mess of text. It’s also fair to mention that the ASP.NET MVC Framework lets developers write cleaner presentation code.
Sure, everyone cites premature optimization as the root of all evil, and we do live in a world of gzip file compression and JavaScript minifiers. But… keeping names short in CSS, ASP.NET, and XHTML isn’t hard as long as you’re mindful of the final goal. Smaller names in the presentation layer will reduce the amount of data transferred over the network which increase the performance of the application.

Joseph Smarr of once said:

Web applications are only slow if you let them get slow – Douglas Crockford, Alex Russell and Joseph Smarr: On the Past, Present and Future of JavaScript [30:00]

My preference (project requirements warranting) is to keep things short and concise in the presentation languages while using longer descriptive names outside the presentation languages. What’s your preference?

Writing a Control for the AJAX Control Toolkit: How ASP.NET AJAX Failed

June 7th, 2008

One of my resolutions this year was to contribute to the AJAX Control Toolkit for the ASP.NET AJAX Framework. I began my AJAX Control Toolkit development quest by digging into the online resources, reading ASP.NET AJAX in Action, and decomposing the AJAX Control Toolkit. I noted the huge learning curve required to developing a control, and continued to dig deeper. Once mired in ASP.NET AJAX a bad smell kept wafting by. Since then I’ve been trying to distinguish this smell.

What’s really wrong with ASP.NET AJAX?

  • It doesn’t plan for performance from day one
  • It treats AJAX as a classic computer science problem
  • It tries to turn JavaScript into a classical language which works against JavaScript’s dynamic, prototypical nature
  • It feels like a framework that was written for dummies (Don’t Write Frameworks For Dummies)

A Case Study: Why Almost Failed

In the video: High-performance JavaScript: Why Everything You’ve Been Taught is Wrong (YUI Theater) Joseph Smarr discusses the challenges and lessons learned while developing While developing this AJAX centric application, the Plaxo team decided to include everything they could think of into their application. They created a framework to treat JavaScript as a classical language, they gave priority to features over performance, and… the project ALMOST FAILED. They were able to salvage their application by diverting their development efforts, making performance one of their top priorities, by unlearning everything they’d been taught about classical applications (instead embracing JavaScript), jettisoning unneeded framework bloat, and more.

Some of the points made in this video were:

  • Plan for performance from day one
  • AJAX is not a classic problem
  • JavaScript is not a classical programming language
  • User experience and a responsive application can make or break an application
  • Unneeded bloat in a framework, and an obtuse approach to using AJAX (treating AJAX and JavaScript as a classical language or classic computer science problem) has the potential to cripple your application

This Channel 9 video also mirrors these sentiments: Douglas Crockford, Alex Russell and Joseph Smarr: On the Past, Present and Future of JavaScript

How ASP.NET AJAX Failed: What can we learn from Plaxo?

The way the Plaxo team approached their application development is similar to how the ASP.NET AJAX Framework has been designed. Like Plaxo’s initial attempt ASP.NET AJAX attempts to mold JavaScript into a classical language, and attempts to treat JavaScript and AJAX as a classic computer science problem by heaping on more abstractions. Like Plaxo’s initial attempt ASP.NET AJAX also gives a low priority to performance. Plaxo was able to change their direction and salvaged their application, but the ASP.NET AJAX Framework is not in a position to make any sweeping changes – ASP.NET AJAX is going down the wrong path and it’s too late.

The ASP.NET AJAX Framework is probably another exercise in Framework Architecture (demoware) and a failure in practice. Its lack of use in the wild attests to these shortcomings – contrast the sites using ASP.NET AJAX with the sites using jQuery (Actions Speak Louder Than Words). Furthermore the places that ASP.NET AJAX does thrive (the small internal ASP.NET business apps that need some bling-bling) will also be the areas that Silverlight shines – Silverlight offers a better Microsoft centric programming model (less leaky Win Form / Web Form abstractions) that most Microsoft developers will embrace. Silverlight will probably divert the developers that currently embrace ASP.NET AJAX.

I don’t recommend the ASP.NET AJAX Framework and won’t be contributing to the AJAX Control Toolkit. My time is better spent elsewhere.

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, AJAX, ASP.NET, ASP.NET AJAX, JavaScript Tags:

More on the perils of The ASP.NET AJAX Framework

June 3rd, 2008

There’s no need to whip a dead horse (I’ve probably been griping about the ASP.NET AJAX Framework for too long), but… Jon Galloway and a group of other notable gurus (K. Scott Allen, Scott Koon, and Kevin Dente) have started a podcast, their latest segment sparked my interest since it covered ASP.NET AJAX and AJAX Libraries / Frameworks in general.

I share their sentiments so I thought I’d post a brief but choppy transcript:

[ASP.NET AJAX] … does offer some some nice features, they did try to take some of the common pieces of the CLR that [.NET Developers are] used to working with and move that down into a JavaScript library. So you get classes like a WebRequest class that wraps the XMLHttpRequest … and they have a StringBuilder, and they added methods that we’re more accustom with …

that’s wonderful, but I don’t find myself needing those extensions all that often. If you want to do strictly client-side programming then something like jQuery offers you a lot more capabilities to do things that you really want to do client-side like sorting and CSS selectors. … That stuff is easy to do with an Update Panel and ASP.NET, but Update Panels aren’t always the best solution to use. …

the goals with ASP.NET AJAX was to integrate into the ASP.NET server-side model … that’s great for ASP.NET, but it needs more client-side features. … It works if your thinking from the ASP.NET control perspective, but if you look at it outside the ASP.NET model there are a lot easier ways to do it.

ASP.NET AJAX [development] seems to have come to a standstill I’m not seeing a lot of development in that area and the rest of these [AJAX] Frameworks are doing monthly releases. Every month that goes by [the ASP.NET AJAX Framework] falls further and further behind … it needs to evolve.

Listen to this podcast here: Technology Round Table Podcast #2 – AJAX Frameworks

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, AJAX, ASP.NET, ASP.NET AJAX, CSS, DOM, JavaScript Tags: