Maintaining ASP.NET Sites

They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
the site's folder.
But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
developers doing work on their site. At the
end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
source code? How do you even understand what the code does
exactly without the source code? It's a nightmare!
In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.The new developer that gets hired gets the source code that is left by the
outsourced developers. Those outsourced developers would be required to
provide the source code to the DLLs, and the non-technical people would be
in posession of this code when the old developers left the project. Thus,
the new develop would receive the source code and go from there.
I don't understand why you wouldn't have the source code'
And by the way, you can code in ASP.NET exactly like you did in ASP. You
don't have to use codebehind. You can have 100% of the code in the .aspx
files, and no DLLs whatsoever.
Maybe you should do your research before declaring ASP superior...
"Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
> They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
> maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
> source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
> with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
> just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
> readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
> the site's folder.
> But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
> by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
> developers doing work on their site. At the
> end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
> and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
> developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
> maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
> files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
> extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
> source code? How do you even understand what the code does
> exactly without the source code? It's a nightmare!
> In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
>
not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on
your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required.
-- brcue (sqlwork.com)
"Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
> They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
> maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
> source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
> with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
> just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
> readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
> the site's folder.
> But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
> by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
> developers doing work on their site. At the
> end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
> and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
> developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
> maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
> files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
> extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
> source code? How do you even understand what the code does
> exactly without the source code? It's a nightmare!
> In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
>
That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world
it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often
not available to new developers for one reason or another.
"Marina" <someone@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ueoyC$GGGHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The new developer that gets hired gets the source code that is left by the
> outsourced developers. Those outsourced developers would be required to
> provide the source code to the DLLs, and the non-technical people would be
> in posession of this code when the old developers left the project. Thus,
> the new develop would receive the source code and go from there.
> I don't understand why you wouldn't have the source code'
> And by the way, you can code in ASP.NET exactly like you did in ASP. You
> don't have to use codebehind. You can have 100% of the code in the .aspx
> files, and no DLLs whatsoever.
> Maybe you should do your research before declaring ASP superior...
> "Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>
Too late, you're the NEW developer. Dlls
have already been made and deployed into
the site. Now you have to fix bugs in them
without any source code. What do you do?
"Bruce Barker" <brubar_nospamplease_@.safeco.com> wrote in message
news:Ohu8$BHGGHA.1124@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> not having source code is an option with asp.net. turn off dll support on
> your asp.net servers, and the source code will be required.
> -- brcue (sqlwork.com)
>
> "Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>
An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess...
Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in
many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this.
If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it, you
can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL is
not obsfucated.
The key word in google is: Reflector
"Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
> They say it's easier, but has anyone tried
> maintaining an ASP.NET site without the
> source code of the dlls? This was not a problem
> with classic ASP, all the code was almost always
> just in text files, easily viewable and most importantly
> readily AVAILABLE on the site, to anyone access to
> the site's folder.
> But just imagine, bunch of companies out there, managed
> by non-technical people, who have had a bunch of outside
> developers doing work on their site. At the
> end of the day, they have several dlls sitting in the bin folder,
> and no source code or project files available. Now you're a new
> developer hired to fix bugs and extend the site. How do you
> maintain these sites now without the source code of the codebehind
> files? How do you understand them? Yes, you can add to it, yes even
> extend the classes. But how do you fix bugs in the dlls without the
> source code? How do you even understand what the code does
> exactly without the source code? It's a nightmare!
> In this respect I think classic ASP is way superior to ASP.NET.
>
If this is ever the case, then someone in management didn't do their job
right if they allowed only the result of compiling the source code to
remain, and not the source code itself.
Basically, the only option is to start from scratch and rewrite the
application, since you obviously can't hack the DLL. And whoever allowed
this to happen just learned a valuable lesson.
This, however has nothing to do with shortcomings of ASP.NET. Like I said,
ASP.NET can be written exactly as ASP was, with 100% of the code in plain
text in the .aspx - so this is always an option.
"Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message news:FvSxf.38$MG1.2@.trnddc05...
> That's very nice in theory, but I'm afraid that in the real world
> it often doesn't work that way. The source code is often
> not available to new developers for one reason or another.
>
> "Marina" <someone@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ueoyC$GGGHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>
Well, at this point what you do is whip out Lutz Roeder's Reflector, along
with the Assembly Decompiler add-in, and decompile all the DLLs so that you
can build a proper source solution.
And then, you require the source code as a matter of basic policy, or nobody
gets to work on your project.
Peter
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
"Raymond" wrote:

> Too late, you're the NEW developer. Dlls
> have already been made and deployed into
> the site. Now you have to fix bugs in them
> without any source code. What do you do?
>
> "Bruce Barker" <brubar_nospamplease_@.safeco.com> wrote in message
> news:Ohu8$BHGGHA.1124@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>
>
I programmed classic ASP for several years, very
intensely, including maintaining the types of code
that you call complete mess. I never found any
complete mess code that I couldn't understand
and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET
I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of
classes, and make sure I can compile them back to
same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand
the code, to even fix the most minor of issues,
which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome.
"Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwallau@.springwireless.net> wrote in message
news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> An ASP application goes very easy to a complete mess...
> Having source code with the page code is a thing that is being avoided in
> many plataforms on these days, MVC is an attempt to improve this.
> If you really can't access the source code and really need to change it,
you
> can do a "prohibited" operation, but that solves your problem if the DLL
is
> not obsfucated.
> The key word in google is: Reflector
> "Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message
news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>
I don't think it's a natural choice to put all the code within the page.
NO reutilization;
NO separation between presentation layers;
NO possibility to have a guy drawing pages and another guy making the code.
Would you like to write all access to the data in your ASPX page? Possible
for few pages, completely insane for 100+ pages.
When you used to do ASP pages, didn't you used any COM+ componentes?
I think it's possible to maintain a good structure with ASP. But things goes
out of control very easy if control is not intensive.
"Raymond" <nothere@.33.net> wrote in message news:rjTxf.49$Di.33@.trnddc06...
>I programmed classic ASP for several years, very
> intensely, including maintaining the types of code
> that you call complete mess. I never found any
> complete mess code that I couldn't understand
> and maintain with some effort. Now with ASP.NET
> I have to disassemble serveral DLLs, dozens of
> classes, and make sure I can compile them back to
> same DLLs, before even attempting to fix and understand
> the code, to even fix the most minor of issues,
> which frankly is much more daunting and troublesome.
> "Ravi Ambros Wallau" <rwallau@.springwireless.net> wrote in message
> news:%23xAXKGHGGHA.2652@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> you
> is
> news:3jSxf.37$MG1.28@.trnddc05...
>