5 ms·

I've just started to scratch the surface of ASP.NET MVC 2.0 and they just release RC v3? Nuts.

• abrudtkuhl 16y ago
  I know! They iterate pretty fast. I love it but it's hard to keep up
  • DougBTX 16y ago
    If you've not read it, a classic Joel article: Fire And Motion http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
    • sk5t 16y ago
      An interesting article... applies very well to the LINQ2SQL / EMF / ADO.NET quagmire. Not so much to fairly mild iterations of MVC.
      • fiveo 16y ago
        What about ASP.NET, ASP.NET 1.1, ASP.NET 2.0, ASP.NET AJAX, and now ASP.NET MVC + varieties of view engine? What about WinForms, WPF, Silverlight?
        • newt 16y ago
          Winforms to WPF was about 20 years, and a sorely needed change. Silverlight is iterating quite quickly, but then they have WPF to build on.
          • fiveo 16y ago
            I'm talking about WinForms .NET. .NET itself is not even 10 years old.
            • newt 16y ago
              What's the difference? Winforms.Net is merely a thin wrapper of regular Winforms.
• johns 16y ago
  Other than Razor (which is optional), not that much has changed and it is a pretty painless upgrade. Under the old way they used to version software, this is really more like ASP.NET MVC 1.5 SP1
  • scotth 16y ago
    The other thing worth noting is way better support for dependency injection, through the DependecyResolver class. I'm becoming particularly attached to the IViewPageActivator interface for providing custom view creation logic (in my case, injection of helpers and custom session information into the page object).
  • bradhe 16y ago
    Heh, sure it's optional but if you stack it up next to the TERRIBLE Web Forms syntax...
    • johns 16y ago
      Well if you were using Spark already, you can go to v3 without changing your templates
• ern 16y ago
  Spare a thought for those of us who have to maintain ASP.NET 2.0 Web Forms apps for a living.