Comments for Dennis van de Laar

Comment on Masterpages and MS Ajax by dennisv

dennisv — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:23:12 +0000

Hi Tera,

First of all. You have a very nice way of communicating. Second i will quote something of your link:

“Any ASP.NET page that includes an UpdatePanel control also requires a ScriptManager control. To use UpdatePanel controls with master pages, you can put a ScriptManager control on the master page. In this scenario, the master page provides a ScriptManager control for every content page. If you do not want partial-page updates enabled for individual CONTENT PAGES, you can disable partial-page updates for those pages.”

So there will be partial rendering on your content pages. The Master page is just a design template for your content page. So this post is describing exactly the same thing i described 4 years ago. So make up your mind before you start insulting people.

Regards,

Dennis

Comment on Masterpages and MS Ajax by tera baap

tera baap — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:45:54 +0000

dennisv is just stupid ……………

point no 2 : it is possible to have partial rendering on a masterpage. FYI DENNIS VAN DE LIAR LIAR.

read this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398864.aspx#Y3333

Comment on WCF services and shared assemblies by Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:01:36 +0000

Thanks you for the post and the clarification. That makes sense. In my case on the client side the immediate consumer of the class isn’t a UI control. I can see some need for some common functionality useful on both the client and the server, while some data and functionality is only applicable at one or the other.

For example the raw data in the DTO’s may have all the data that is needed but there might be calculated properties, readonly convenience properties, helper methods, calculations, and maybe even light validation that might be useful on both the client and the server. If that were put into the shared classes then they are no longer just DTO’s and it is the uglier shortcut you were referring to.

If not there I was just thinking through how to best structure things if there is a need for both shared and different functionality on the client and server…

Comment on WCF services and shared assemblies by dennisv

dennisv — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:24:02 +0000

Hi Geoff,
Thanks for your feedback. I will provide a working solution as soon as possible.The domain invoice will only be on the serverside. You should map your domain invoice to you DTO invoice. The DTO invoice will be in the shared assembly. This assembly will be referenced at client and serverside. You can map your DTO’s on the client side to UI controls or other UI classes.

So the step taking from the service to the client will be:
Domain invoice –> Automapper –> DTO invoice –> Send over the wire –> DTO incoive –> UI control (Invoice control).

The only assembly shared will be the DTO assembly. The domain object will stay on the serverside so there will be no details shared with the clients. This way you are also able to modify your service implementation without updating your client’s proxy. I hope i was able to answer your questions. I will update my post to clarify certain parts.

Comment on WCF services and shared assemblies by Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:56:31 +0000

So in this example where would your domain Invoice class be located? Would it exist as two separate classes in both the client and server assemblies? Not in the shared assembly where the service contract resides? If so, it seems there may be some similar logic on both the client and server versions that might get duplicated. If not you may be exposing service specific details to the client(s).

Likewise how might the mapping be different / similar / shared on both sides? Would you use something like AutoMapper to convert between DTO and DO within/after each service method?

I’m liking what you are saying but a sample solution and/or some more specifics might help with the full picture.

Comment on WCF services and shared assemblies by WCF Services And Shared Assemblies? Dennis Van De Laar | Microsoft WCF Knowledge Sharing

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:01:56 +0000

[...] This will take a little more work and could give you the feeling that DTOs resembles the domain object, but it gives you a way more flexibility. You can compare this implementation of the way to a canonical data model (CDM). You also have to map data from external system to an internal format that is used by BizTalk or another broker. In this case, the domain model is your CDM. This article is a revised edition, original one is at here. [...]

Comment on WSSF: ambiguous datacontracts by Butch

Butch — Sun, 08 May 2011 21:55:10 +0000

Hey, youre the goto expert. Thanks for haignng out here.

Comment on Started a SQL Azure database by dennisv

dennisv — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:37:26 +0000

Hi Jonathan,

You are right. My Colleague Tijmen van der Kamp also mentioned that there is a way to design your database objects in a visual manner. I was probably a bit sleepy when i designed my tables. Thanks for you comment!

Regards,

Dennis

Comment on Started a SQL Azure database by Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 05:45:57 +0000

I assume you used SQL Server Management Studio to connect to SQL Azure. Once you connect to SQL azure, you can perform management tasks just like that on SQL Server. You are not limited to using TSQL. The new Windows Azure Platform Management portal also provide table designer and table data editor, see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/zaneadam/archive/2010/11/30/new-windows-azure-platform-management-portal.aspx.

Comment on WCF and IsWrapped MessageContracts by Arvind Balasubramaniam

Arvind Balasubramaniam — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:07:31 +0000

As a rule of thumb I think it would it be safe to say that we need to use IsWrapped = true when there are more than 1 message part in a message contract. I wonder why the designers gave users the option to set this value manually. I can’t really think of a reason to use a wrapper for instance, a message contract with only 1 primitive message part.