Couple of year ago I when to work for company as web developer. It has my first Sirius web development job, (ASPx/C#) so it has very exciting and I learned a lot about that world, from the developer point of view.
In that group we had a concept for the pages where loaded in the page UC’s (User controls), I don’t know if it’s the same in every web development team with every language, I’ll assume it is so.
The contract ended and I came back to develop win32 “winForm” application.
But since them I have tried to apply the same principle for my win32 development I learn there, meaning having bunch of UC’s (Visual User controls) that I load in the form.
They are regular visual components, not loaded in the toolbox, code is available in the project, but the component is not developed in the form, they are loaded there.
I would like to know opinions about this approach, what other are doing similar or better to this And improvements that can help us to speed up development and increase code reuse, because that is what this is all about.
If you're using the layout components in Winforms, this might be an acceptable approach although I think the thing that distinguishes the web and Windows Forms (note: NOT WPF!) is that in the former you do a lot of "compositing" which is why the UserControl concept is so useful whereas in the latter you operate on very sophisticated controls (e.g. 3rd party - in my last gig we used an incredible grid control via a small company called Infralution)
The main problem I would see is with layouts since the rendering model is a little different than the web. I know nothing about your application but if it "works" that is what is most important. I assume in this case you use things like the FlowLayoutPanel and the TableLayoutPanel properly.
If you want to go a more canonical route, take a look beyond simply creating components at how you can use the inheritance model to composite your application in a more robust way - having a base Form class that has containers for where your "UserControl" type components go and then using some kind of interface based dependency injection to swap them out while the application is running.
Finally, take a look at some of the open source Windows Forms applications out there to see if you're being too hard on yourself since common UI and reusable components are a goal in every application. Even though I've always thought Microsoft's Patterns & Practices stuff teetered towards being bloated, there are some good ideas and you should study some of the approaches of the Composite UI Application Block they put out.
Okay, not finally, there's one more thing I'd like to add: take a long hard look at WPF which will bring back a lot of the concepts from your web development days and give you that kind of power in a desktop application.
Related
Given that C# is a leans more towards a strongly typed language, why did the designers chose navigation based on URIs over Classes?
NavigationService.Navigate(new Uri("/MyPage.xaml", UriKind.Relative))
fails at run time if MyPage is missing.
If there were a method that support passing a PhoneApplicationPage as a argument like
NavigationService.Navigate(new MyPage());
Navigation related errors can be caught at compile time.
Why was this not an inherent design in Silverlight/WP7 ?
Only the WP7 dev tools team can say for sure, but absent their input, I'll give it my best shot. My guess is that it arises out of using a plug-in framework for client application development. Web Silverlight doesn't even really have the concept of navigation. You can switch frames in and out of the applications main frame, but that's not really navigation persay. So, when they were asked to use Silverlight as a client application tool for WP7, they had to decide how they were going to navigate around.
The most obvious way to solve the navigation problem, if you're a team that's been building internet applications, is to make something as close to the internet model as possible. This allows developers to carry internet applications to the browser and do minimal rewrites of their code. Think about it, if you had a web application that used relative URLs to move between application pages, your WP7 could reuse most of that navigation logic with only slight modifications to use the new NavigationService. This also minimizes the changes from core Silverlight that the WP7 version has to make, making everything easier to keep synchronized between platforms.
It obviously isn't the best way of doing things, and it makes state maintenance between pages a royal pain in the ass, but I can at least see why they decided to do it this way. The main flaws, in my experience, are the runtime checking of navigation destinations (instead of compile time with classes), passing parameters (every page needs an OnNavigatedTo that parses out variables) and maintenance of non-trivial objects between pages (I've taken to just using Singletons to hold relevant objects as a sort of poor-man's cache). I'm hoping for at least some modification to the navigation paradigm in 7.5 or 8, but I'm not holding my breath.
This navigation model was inherited from Silverlight on the desktop (and WPF before it). It's important to note: this is not a String-based model, but rather a URI-based model. The difference here is key: we're not talking about an arbitrary string to point to some XAML, we're talking about a universal locator for a resource that is a page within the application. By addressing navigation this way, your application actually has more than one entry point -- any URI within the application can be a valid entry point. And by making navigation URI-based, you ensure that the "state" of your application as it relates to what you're looking at can be serialized, accessed at any time from any direction, etc.
Imagine, for example, that you have a link on a webpage (or in an email, or anywhere else) that you want to open in your application. Click the link, and because the URI fully describes the resource that the application should display (e.g. an item in a catalog, filters on a search, etc.), you can jump straight to it (a.k.a. deep-linking). This isn't implemented on Windows Phone 7 (at least not from other apps, but it's really how the back button, etc. work), but the model comes straight from Silverlight on the desktop (the Navigation framework is in the Silverlight SDK), and you can see where they might take it on Windows Phone in the future.
Again, the power of the URI is its universality -- it is a common way to identify a resource. Without it, you're stuck with a tight coupling of anything that wants to navigate into your application and the application itself.
Silverlight/WP7 navigation service is fairly lacking in many regards, but there are a fair number of frameworks around that allow you to navigate to the ViewModel/View. Some examples:
Windows Phone MVP
Columbus
Xamling Core
In Caliburn Micro (MVVM framework) you have a nice way of handling navigation using only ViewModels - "Screens, Conductors and Composition"
Also keep in mind that using frames you can use routing in Silverlight to map one or more user-friendly URLs to the same .xaml file. If you would specify only the view class then Silverlight wouldn't know to which URL to map to.
Passing query parameters for state managment might be ugly, but it allows your application to be stateless which has some advantages (e.g. deep links) and fits the stateless nature of http web applications.
Forgive me if this is the wrong place but I am curious as to how other programmers feel about this topic:
I am currently working on my portfolio site, it is being designed and built in silverlight 4. I initially started off with a typical stylised e-folio theme much like a standard website in terms of layout and flow.
As I work more in the concept stages something has struck me. Am I trying to shoe-horn yesterday into today? What I am talking about is UI expectations. I'm all for clean user interfaces but that does not mean they should not take advantage of new concepts in presentation right?
If you where to develop a site in silverlight as your own portfolio piece would you stick to the tried and tested "website" feel or would you try to come up with a UI that is intuitive and complements the technology?
I feel that UI discussions are all the more important now that all forms of web development are allowing better methods to engage the user.
One of the most important things in UI design is to avoid being "clever". Understand the cultural, psychological and experiential expectations of your users and meet those expectations, don't challenge them. If a user has to learn your UI concept, or an unusual mental model of information organization, you have failed.
Read The Design of Everyday Things and Designing Visual Interfaces to dig into these ideas more deeply.
There is (very nearly) no such thing as a new UI scheme - simply new arrangements of the basic concepts of user interaction - see the iPod click wheel, for example. Almost without fail, anyone who thinks they have come up with some great new interface concept has actually just come up with crap that doesn't follow any of the rules of UI design - and it's bound to frustrate users, make them feel stupid, or make them think the designer is stupid.
If you understand these basic pieces, you can use new technologies like Silverlight to put them together in better ways than ever before. Again, the key is understanding them and what drives them, and how they align with the user's conscious and unconscious needs.
There's two answers to this: macro and micro.
On micro level, the usual UI design idea is to NOT violate the users' expectations.
If they expect a certain type of widget/flow/look to do "X", don't make your site do "Y". It confuses or even frustrates the users.
However, you can always come up with new widgets/paradigms! (an example would be expandable panes upon introduction of JavaScript)
On a macro level, if you can come up with a new work/view/data flow or feel due to new technologies used (Silverlight), most certainly try it!
However, as usual, follow the Nielsen mantra... Hallway test!
Come up with an idea, prototype, and try it out on 5 people you know (coworkers, friends, family) to gauge usability "in real life".
I would avoid making a Silverlight application that is the same as a web page. But were I to make a portfolio, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the Silverlight basket either. (Well unless I had the money to wait for a Silverlight job.)
I would look to embed a couple small applications made in Silverlight. Depending on what you want to emphasize, it could even be something as simple as a calculator with cool effects on the keys. Another idea is some kind of feed reader.
I absolutely have no idea about Silverlight except that it is a Microsoft technology.
Having nearly completed a Computer Science degree, having programmed in C# for a few years in a work environment - have a good knowledge of Java and OO techniques - how hard is the road of average Silverlight programming? I've been offered some work DAMN IT!
I've mucked around with PHP, HTML and nearly no CSS..
Would I need a strong web programming background in order to pick it up?
I like Ben's answer, and he's right that a huge bonus of learning Silverlight is that you don't have to worry about the stateless model. However, there are a few parts of Silverlight that are less easy to learn:
Styling & control templates - These concepts look like CSS at first but there's a good bit more that you can do with them such as completely overriding the visual aspects of the control. Also, modifying the styles of existing controls is one thing and learning how to create your own control that can be easily styled is quite another.
Database connectivity - If you're anything like me the first thing you'll want to do after you write a "hello world" test is hook up to a Db and pull down some data. Since Silverlight can't directly connect to a Db you'll have to learn one of 3 techniques to move data between the browser and server: 1. WCF + your custom service methods + LINQ to SQL or LINQ to EF or whatever data access you choose. 2. ADO.NET Data Services (great way to start out) 3. .NET RIA Services (once you've realized that you need your data access technology to play nice with data binding and honor biz rules).
Security - You need to learn another part of the MS technology stack to get this working properly, ASP.NET Application Services. It should take more than a few hours to hook things up but it is another technology to learn.
Browser navigation, search engine friendliness & deep linking - Things you take for granted writing a traditional web app will take a bit more work in SL. You can use .NET RIA Services to handle browser navigation & deep linking, others have written about making your site friendly to search engines (and I don't know how ;).
What I'm trying to highlight here is that while learning the basics of Silverlight is easy, you'll probably run into other parts of the MS technology stack that you'll need to learn to get your work done. The beautiful thing here is that all of the technologies come from 1 vendor with a single focus and they work really well together. I shudder when I think about all the different technologies you'd need to pull off my current SL app in the open source domain.
Pick up the book "Silverlight Unleashed" and go to http://silverlight.net/GetStarted to start learning. Scott Gu's 8 part blog posting (#3 on that Getting Started web page) was one of the first things I read about Silverlight and is hugely helpful.
Unless your Silverlight app has to interact with a traditional web page, you don't need to know anything about traditional web UI technologies.
If you've done any desktop UI development you'll find Silverlight much easier to pick up than any web UI paradigm. Compared to the unholy mess that is css + html + javascript combined with ever-changing browsers and fourteen other hundred-author web "standards", Silverlight is a walk in the park.
First I'd like to make it clear, I'm not looking for a "my tech is better than yours" type of post; this is a real case scenario and I have been faced with this decision. With this in mind, let me explain:
We have a WinForms application. It started in the early .NET 1.0 but the first shipping version was using .NET 1.1. There are layers (like BusinessLayer.dll, Datalayer.dll, Framework.DLL, etc.) but at some point during the "long" development cycle of this application, the "presentation" layer (Win Forms) got infected with some code, thus the "separation between the code and the presentation with code behind" is some sort of myth.
Bad practices or whatever, the truth is that the application is there and it works.
Years passed and we had .NET 2.0, we slowly migrated and it mostly worked, had to change a few calls here and there. Last version did the same thing, but for .NET 3.5sp1. We needed some sort of Webservices thing, and decided to use WCF instead. It works fine.
But despite all these .NET upgrades, most of the application's codebase is still the same old rock and roll from 5 years ago. We use Gentle.NET (old and unmaintained now) for our dataobjects (it was a blessing 5 years ago!).
Our presentation layer, the winforms, are "nice looking" since we employ 90% of completely gdi+ custom controls. (whenever possible without having to hack the WinAPi). The application is touch based (i.e.: it makes use of the Ink but it doesn't rely on that), but the buttons, labels, etc, everything is "designed" to be used with a tactile device. (TabletPC or Touchscreen). Of course some users use keyboard/mouse.
With all that in mind, and with all this web2.0 and Internet fuzz (plus Jeff's posts ;) ), we are considering the possibility of rewriting the application but using a web technology.
The idea is obviously bringing more availability for our customers (they can use the system whenever/wherever they want), and less maintenance (we can upgrade and it is an instant upgrade for 'em all), etc. You know, the usual Internet vs WinApp thingy.
The problem is that given that this is the healthcare industry, not all of our customers might be willing to "move" their databases to our server/s, which is acceptable, and would force us to install a webserver/database server in their own servers so they have their own copy. Not a big problem (except we would have to update those manually but that's not an issue, given that we've been updating win32 apps for 5 years now!).
Now, back to the main "question".
The team has little Asp.NET experience, we did program a lot in ASP 2.0 (in 1999/2000) but that was a spaghetti of HTML+VBScript+CSS, so I don't think it counts. After all that experience (the Internet bubble!) we went back to VB6 then C#.NET 1x and you know the rest of the story. We're a small team of C# developers for WinForms. We've acquired some Linq To SQL Experience in our last .NET 3.5 ride, and we liked it. We felt it very natural and very "if we would have had this five years ago…" like.
Given all this, rewriting the application is not a "simple task" (not even if we wanted to do it in the already known C#.NET), it would take time and planning, but we could correct dozens of mistakes and with 5 years of experience working with the application, we now can say that we have a better idea of how the customers would like to use the software and what limitations we created (by ourselves) when we designed the current app.
All that "knowledge" of the application and the way the business works, could be applied to produce a much better application in terms of design and code and usability. Remember in .NET 1.1 we didn't even have generics! ;) (you'll see lots of ArrayList's hanging around here).
As an additional note, we use Crystal Reports (and, as usual, we hate it). We don't think the ink control is a "must" either. The HTML/CSS could be shaped to look the way we want it, although we're aware that HTML is not WinForms (and hence some things cannot be reproduced).
Do you think that planning this in MVC (or WebForms) would be too crazy?
I like the MVC (ruby on rails like) idea (I've never programmed in ruby beyond the basics of the book), so no one in our team is an expert, but we can always learn and read. It mustn't be "rocket science", must it?
I know that this whole question might be a little bit subjective, but would you replace an aging Winforms application with a new ASP/MVC/XXX web application? Do you have experience or have tried (and had success or failed) ?
Any insight in helping use better decide what to do will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE: Thanks to all who responded, we'll evaluate whether this is a good move or not, it sure is a hell of work, but I am afraid the the desktop app is getting older (using old net 1.1 hacks) and tho it has been more or less working without problems in Vista and W7, I'm afraid a future update may break it.
Also, lots of "more or less core" parts of the application are exposing some badly designed ideas and we had to hack here and there to accomplish certain tasks. Part inexperience, part lack of 100% knowledge of how the business worked (and Customers not sure what they wanted).
A new application (in any form) would allow us to create a better foundation while retaining all the user knowledge.
But, it's a L O T of work :) So we'll consider all these options here.
As some of you have mentioned, maybe a thinner client and some (ab)use of WCF here and there might be more appropriate.
Once again, thanks to all!
It would be best to ditch all your efforts of reusing the desktop application code when you recreate the web app. Following are the reasons:
Web apps especially asp.net use a different model. For starters note http is stateless. Each time the browser talks to server you have to explicitly send the current content of all the controls on the current page. You would not have used such a model in your Windows application.
To decrease load on the network you want to optimize the size of viewstate and how frequent you make http requests. Again your existing window app does not have any such provisions.
Updating view. You might have different event handlers, threads and what not in your windows application to update the GUI in different scenarios. All of that will need to be replaced. Javascript is a totally different animal.
Security. When using a browser your access to the local disk is highly limited whereas you will take the same for granted in windows application. If there is any code in the windows app that requires local resources, then that is going to be a trouble spot for you.
I would recommend the following:
Verify if your current application has any local disk access requirements (e.g. read/write to local file etc).
As you write the different http modules or handlers, you can try leveraging some of the backend/ business logic part of the existing windows application.
Give some thought to what part of your application can become a web service.
It sounds like the application needs a lot of refactoring to clean it up. If you want to move to a web model, and have maximum reuse you will really need to do that. Before you move to a web model I think you need to understand if it will be possible to replicate your user interface in that model. Is it your unique selling point from a customer perspective? You want decisions like this to be user driven rather than purely technical decisions.
It sounds like your application is the perfect candidate for a thick client application, rather than the lowest common denominator web model.
Some things to consider:
How will the web interface impact the Tablet interaction?
What new customers will having a web version bring you?
Will existing customers abandon your product?
Do you have access to consultants or outside resource with the right skills to mentor you in web technology? If you don't you can rely on StackOverflow or other web resources to help. You need some good mentoring and guidance on the ground with you.
What happens if you start this effort and it takes much longer than you expect? You know the app but don't sound like you know the web. Past experience shows that massive rewrites like this can end in disaster (it never sounds so difficult at the start)
Can you possibly write new features in a web-based version?
Could you move to ClickOnce deployment to make the application easier to deploy to customers. One of the benefits of the web is easier (zero) deployment. Can you get closer to that?
Would it be easier to migrate to WPF and create a browser application with that?
Silverlight or Flex might be better options for creating a rich experience, and may be more approachable for WinForms developers. Is this a possibility?
It seems like your app. is one of those that works best as a desktop app. Though you want your users to be able to access your app. using a browser.
I would suggest refactoring as much as possible so that the GUI gets cleaner and don't have "code".
When you've done this, start developing a asp.net mvc app but keep your desktop app. You should be able to use all layers except the UI layer, making it easier/faster/... Now that mvc exists, I'd say webforms is more about letting non-web devs do web. But you know web, sort of, and you want control so mvc is the way to go.
I’m currently involved in the design of a prototype Silverlight 3 application used by call centre operators in an enterprise who take queries via phone and email. The intention of the prototype is to demonstrate how Silverlight can be used to improve the UX and overcome some of the hurdles of using ASP.NET webforms in a high latency environment. I won’t go into the details of the environment or the rationale of Silverlight 3 vs 2 or WPF, this question is about usability;
I’m looking for examples of good user interface design suitable for the above requirement that highlight some of the benefits of Silverlight. It’s a prototype so it can be a bit sexier than your usual enterprise app and have a few more bells and whistles than you’d usually get from user requirements. The goal is to both provide something functional and introduce the “wow” factor. Appreciate any resources or examples you can think of.
You've got a stateful client - one of the interesting things to do is leverage that state.
For example:
Task centric UI with multiple active tasks.
Each task represents a process/workflow that has begun, but not yet completed. Especially useful in scenarios where ther are interrupts.
Auto-save drafts to local isolated storage in case the app restarts, browser closes etc. Any partially filled forms can be restored when the app is re-launched.
The other thing is context... or preserving context of the task at hand. For example, if you want to do a lookup, you can popup a dialog, rather than navigate away from the current page.
Just some quick ideas...
Have you seen http://quince.infragistics.com? Although not specific to Silverlight it's full of proven UI methods - not Infragistics specific!
I find it very useful when designing forms and controls, maybe you will find some good suggestions there.
I like the way it encourages (forces) all your service calls to be asynchronous. From the UX point of view it means that your form is not locked up while performing a potentially laggy operation.
Animations are nice too. While they're often considered useless fluff, they can reduce the amount of surprise the user experiences when something suddenly changes. They can also be used to draw attention in a more subtle way that a messagebox in the face.