|
which "framework" should i go for (or more accurately, give the dev i'm gonna make do it the go ahead to use) to sit alongside .net MVC to do the bits of ajax type binding in the ui that MVC can't do? Options are: 1) Angular (not angular 2 though for some elaborate "reason") 2) react 3) kill self also i tried to go for asp.net core and was told "we don't support that because it's open source". also the kestrel reverse proxy to work in IIS confused the gently caress out of the team that manage the web farms who actually haven't managed to get us on to .net 4.5.2 yet so I guess the chances of getting core any time soon are zero.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
3 before 2 before 3 again and then 1
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
i've never seen a nice javascript codebase
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Just not Angular. Symbolic Butt is right, kill yourself twice before using Angular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:3 before 2 before 3 again and then 1 Finster Dexter posted:Just not Angular. Symbolic Butt is right, kill yourself twice before using Angular. this was my gut feel not having used either (or done 3 yet) i'd prefer "none of the above" but i can't see another way of getting the functionality that we need in MVC (e.g. just having the content of a dropdown populate based on a previous selection) without piles of javascript everywhere and some sort of framework around it. i mean, if it was me id just brute force it in jquery because i suck edit: does anyone use knockout anymore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:edit: does anyone use knockout anymore? i think it's heyday is over but it's still maintained, useful, and works fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
i will be doing the same thing as Powerful Two-Hander soon. angular got mentioned a lot by several people, i said i heard it's bad and we should use react instead because of this thread. the response was "all that javascript poo poo is the same so we may as well use angular". i want to argue this but i don't actually know why angular is bad, help plz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:here, have this ansible playbook snippet: lol ok lemme just curl | sh and compile from source on a production server to be fair i did resort to doing exactly this on a dev instance but i'll give up and port my poo poo back to python 2 before doing that in live
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:cjs: currently mad at customers who feel they can demand the same performance they'd get in a datacenter when dealing with a PaaS built on top of AWS. at least downmarket you you don't have to coddle idiots quite so much dealing with this *cough* large financial institution *cough* that has been tasked with making VMs in whatever godforsaken abomination they're running in their DC. they gave us instances with 1megabit/second ethernet and 1megabyte/second write disks. literally. honestly I don't even know how you could accomplish that in TYOOL 2016 without actively throttling everything. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:Options are: they are all bad answers but 3 is the worst. i know it is hard to maintain the will to live in the face of javascript, but suicide is never the right choice. please try to stay strong. you will die all too soon anyway, and there is still pleasure in this fleeting life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
HoboMan posted:i will be doing the same thing as Powerful Two-Hander soon. angular got mentioned a lot by several people, i said i heard it's bad and we should use react instead because of this thread. the response was "all that javascript poo poo is the same so we may as well use angular". i want to argue this but i don't actually know why angular is bad, help plz. I have not used react very much, but what I've seen, it seems to have a lot less lovely boilerplate than Angular. Angular is like "Boilerplate: the js framework". It's going to be huge pain to maintain. I haven't looked at Angular 2, but I don't think a complete rewrite in typescript is going to redeem it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
someone at work saw "how do I integrate react with my large gwt project" on snack overflow and assumed it was our lead architect posting on a parachute account our last lead architect up and quit, cursing out the director a few months ago because they wouldn't let him work remotely from Germany or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:lol ok lemme just curl | sh and compile from source on a production server
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:someone at work saw "how do I integrate react with my large gwt project" on snack overflow and assumed it was our lead architect posting on a parachute account god at least we're not using gwt, there's an app team that uses it and it is total garbage, though whether that's their fault or gwts i couldn't say. part of me doesn't care what gets used on our frontend as long as the .net MVC backend is solid but I know that that will come back to haunt me some day. Another team is about to do a rewrite using react so i might push for that on the basis that we can share some knowledge
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:cjs: currently mad at customers who feel they can demand the same performance they'd get in a datacenter when dealing with a PaaS built on top of AWS. yo legit surprised i didn't see you guys at reinvent would have wanted that heroku swag for sure
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:you could yum install python-pip instead but i'm guessing there's a reason they chose the website over the one in epel there was some reason but I forgot Sapozhnik posted:lol ok lemme just curl | sh and compile from source on a production server being realistic you'll need to resort to stuff like this eventually for python2 too
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
I just make an rpm to deal with that stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:which "framework" should i go for (or more accurately, give the dev i'm gonna make do it the go ahead to use) to sit alongside .net MVC to do the bits of ajax type binding in the ui that MVC can't do? react owns use react
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:which "framework" should i go for (or more accurately, give the dev i'm gonna make do it the go ahead to use) to sit alongside .net MVC to do the bits of ajax type binding in the ui that MVC can't do? knockout. it will come w/ ur default asp.net project so ur all set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
either way don't use angular cause its trash and don't use ajax or any other javascript if you don't have to. server side rendering is still the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
use react
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:either way don't use angular cause its trash and don't use ajax or any other javascript if you don't have to. server side rendering is still the best. can you do server side rendering without node?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:can you do server side rendering without node? lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
is that a yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Did servers generate html before node, asks the something awful forums user
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
i'm talking about react-style server side rendering (i.e. generate html that matches what would've been generated by client side javascript framework)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
you should be using a template system anyway just pick a template library that has implementations for both js and whatever server language you're using
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:(e.g. just having the content of a dropdown populate based on a previous selection) without piles of javascript everywhere and some sort of framework around it. if that is really all that needs to happen then yeah, why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
i know that vue.js (think knockout, but in 2016!) supports react-style server-side rendering. there's a third-party thing that allows server-side rendering in asp.net iirc
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
redleader posted:i know that vue.js (think knockout, but in 2016!) supports react-style server-side rendering. there's a third-party thing that allows server-side rendering in asp.net iirc I've been impressed with vue.js in terms of being pretty straight forward to use when you're doing relatively simple things. I'm not particularly experienced with it though
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
trigger warning: front-end javascript frameworks
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Messyass posted:if that is really all that needs to happen then yeah, why not? My thoughts exactly. No need to install and learn complex frameworks and messing with a ton of command line utils if all you need to do is something so small and mundane as loading some data and filling a select with options Leave react/angular for web apps, the poster could have coded that using jquery in the time it took him to write that post It reminds me of that article posted here, where the guy just wanted to load some that in a table and hipster js guy wanted him to learn 50 new technologies just to do that
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:My thoughts exactly. No need to install and learn complex frameworks and messing with a ton of command line utils if all you need to do is something so small and mundane as loading some data and filling a select with options yeah im actually coming back round to this. the stuff i thought we 'needed' a framework for can probably be dealt with by just shifting how the app works so that actions are saved individually instead of what happens today which is they're added to the 'model' in the user session, shown on the aspx page page and the whole object is posted back in one big chunk. i mean, you can do that in pure mvc as well by appending new elements to the DOM with properly formatted ids/names but thats a lot of hassle when we could just break things out some more and avoid it entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:yo legit surprised i didn't see you guys at reinvent There was a bunch of people attending the conf but that's about it from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:yeah im actually coming back round to this. the stuff i thought we 'needed' a framework for can probably be dealt with by just shifting how the app works so that actions are saved individually instead of what happens today which is they're added to the 'model' in the user session, shown on the aspx page page and the whole object is posted back in one big chunk. okay, but if you feel at any point that the quick hack you're now doing is starting to resemble an "app" you need to maintain,
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:i'm talking about react-style server side rendering (i.e. generate html that matches what would've been generated by client side javascript framework) you could theoretically use javascript to generate it if you're a big ol' retard but one of the huge benefits of doing it server side is not having to use javascript at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
fixed my first crazy threading error. feels good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Just finally got to the bottom of one of our systems being really unreliable for no apparent reason. Turns out that a third party API that we're integrating with will return the same authentication token to multiple login requests made by the same account. As soon as one of the processes calls LogOut, all other processes that happen to be running at the same time will break. Seems to be working fine in development but just randomly breaks in production because you're more likely to get overlapping requests. Workaround until the third party fixes it: never call LogOut. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 14:46
|
|