Back from TechEd

Some reflections on the past week, and some thoughts about future posts on this blog...

Now, back in Redmond... it was great to see and interact with many folks in the cabana area and in the various chalk talks. Its fun to see excitement around Whidbey and various features we've worked on during the past few years, as well as hear real world experiences using the v1.x product from TechEd attendees. I heard some good suggestions, ideas (in terms of product features, and documentation as well) and had some good discussions as well. If you have input you'd like to provide, don't hesitate using msdn feedback, and/or my comment form below. It would be great to factor that in as v-next planning gets into full swing.

I ended up joining various cabana talks: page lifecycle, data controls, WebParts, and even a UX-releated discussion. There were some really good questions indicating quite of bit of insight on the part of attendees. I attended Fritz Onion's excellent BOF session on async pages. I liked the format of the session consisting of free-form white-boarding, and open Q&A. In fact, I liked it so much, that I adopted it for the page lifecycle discussion the next day. It was really fun to draw up the lifecycle, talk through its various incarnations, and how it impacts what page and control developers can/need to do for almost an hour. I just wish it were recorded. I wonder if I could use this as the core format, add a few demos, and turn it into a good way to get across lifecycle and other advanced server control concepts.

If I were to put a finger on the most popular topic of the week, it had to be Ajax. Not at all surprising! It was interesting enough that I had a press guy come to the cabana and try to probe and stir up a debate. It was great responding to the more technical questions, showing how callbacks in Whidbey provide the basic building blocks and infrastructure to enable server controls to offer rich user experiences. I am hoping to post more on the subject in the future, in terms of how to fully utilize the model, some potential upcoming changes in the callbacks infrastructure for RTM, and possibly some additional work we'll be doing in this area post-Whidbey.

Speaking about future posts (as discussed with an attendee), please do use my contact form to suggest topics you'd like to see covered. I prefer topics which are a bit generally applicable rather than specific problems, or topics that allow me to discuss interesting aspects of ASP.NET architecture, or those that allow me to share opinions about Web development (with the goal of starting a fun discussion/debate).

Posted on Sunday, 6/12/2005 @ 9:20 PM | #ASP.NET


Comments

6 comments have been posted.

mike

Posted on 6/13/2005 @ 9:27 AM
> and documentation as well

Such as? :-)

Nikhil Kothari

Posted on 6/13/2005 @ 12:20 PM
The most common thing I heard, which is probably obvious is to have updated documentation with the builds. Before anyone thinks otherwise, the entire UE team is hard at work, and lots of people across the feature teams are busy reviewing material that will be available when we ship. I believe, the help system we are using will also allow out-of-band updates. Mike? That said, I am starting to wonder if we could have our actual feature specs form the start or conceptual base for the documentation we put out. We point to them internally, and using them in public form will only reinforce the spec'ing process (though initially that would mean additional work to bring about a consistent quality level across specs).

Another piece of feedback I got was to make docs more scenario focused, like in the form of How-To's. Various questions I got would better be answered by small article-type pieces that bring together different parts of the framework, rather than by conceptual or reference material.

A couple of attendees I talked to mentioned they didn't have a good way to know what was in the system. For example, what are the extensibility points? What are the capabilities of controls? Again, I think this would be more likely to be addressed by general breadth overviews of the system, and through scenario focused documentation, as opposed to single-class-focused reference topics.

Simon Evans

Posted on 6/21/2005 @ 2:30 PM
One of the topics we discussed at TechEd was customizing the web part framework - something there is very little documentation on at present. There are two main areas I would like to see more information on: the internals of the webpart framework and the extensibiltiy points of it.

Thanks to the advice you gave me in the cabana, I have been able to successfully sub class the editor zone to suit the requirements of my project. I recall you running through another example where you would sub class the webpartmanager, webpartpersonalization and toolzone classes to create a new display mode. Now that would be nice to have an article on.

Ray Linder

Posted on 6/25/2005 @ 12:19 AM
I have an interesting idea for ASP.NET 2.0. Is there a way to check a username through, let's say, 5 different SQL membership databases? Basicly, by taking the username and validate it through all 5 databases and verify that the username exists in all 5. I'm developing an intranet for a local school in ASP.NET 2.0 using Beta 2 and C# and had structured 5 databases (all using profile, membership, etc. tables) rather than using just 1 for future developments for the school. If this is possible, please let me know how to inplement it, if not, then can you make it possible? AND with the understanding of your busy schedule, would you or anyone you know like to help develop an intranet project for schools written in ASP.NET 2.0 & C#?

Nikhil Kothari

Posted on 6/26/2005 @ 9:39 PM
Ray, on your scenario: I don't think we'd put this into the product, since I don't see the generality of the particular scenario (not that I've fully understood why you need to have the information in 5 separate databases). However, it should be possible to implement a new provider, say CompositeMembershipProvider which had 5 connection strings in configuration, and composed together multiple instances of SqlMembershipProvider to do the job.

Simon: I will look into covering web parts at some point down the road. At the moment, I am trying to put together a series of posts (getting #1 ready for post soon) on data sources.

Ray Linder

Posted on 7/3/2005 @ 6:56 PM
Thanks for the reply and email, I will try the "CompositeMembershipProvider" for example:

foreach (CompositeMembershipProvider cmp in SqlMembershipProvider.Providers)
{
bool result = mp.ValidateUser("user", "password");
}

I'll test this as many times in different senarios and will post here with the successful results. Stefan Schackow did help a bit but was unsuccessful in implementing their version. Again, thank you... - Ray
The discussion on this post has been closed. Please use my contact form to provide comments.