You are currently viewing the BOOK: ASP.NET 2.0 Website Programming Problem Design Solution ISBN: 978-0-7645-8464-0 section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of tens of thousands of software programmers and website developers including Wrox book authors and readers. As a guest, you can read any forum posting. By joining today you can post your own programming questions, respond to other developers’ questions, and eliminate the ads that are displayed to guests. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free .
I've been thinking of trying to get some small contract work as a Beer House developer. That is to say I wouldn't look for just any kind of web project but only projects that lend themselves to a Beer House solution. I would be a sort of Beer House customizer. This lowers my risk considerably. I would just point a potential customer to one or more of the Beer House sites. If they wanted something like what they saw I would be pretty sure I could produce a site they would accept.
The Beer House has a number of advantages as a development platform:
It is very, very well documented
There is a developer community
It is easy modify and deploy
It provides a lot of functionality
It is built on industrial strength technologies
It should be possible to create a deploy a TBH site for $1K to $3K. There are a lot of customers at that price point - I think. For bigger projects someone else here might want to partner with me.
So am I crazy? Is this legal? Is this sort of thing OK with WROX?
I think the architecture can be used without any copyright issues. perhaps a wholesale makeover of the original site wouldn't cut the mustard and could be considered borderline in this respect.
I'd suggest that if you are going to expand the Beerhouse style that you take a very close look at the Flixon Site Generator that i keep bumping on about. It honestly is a well kep secret and will save you a ton of coding. best of all, all code produced is of the beerhouse architecture.
You can use The Beerhouse for your own sites and sites you develop for clients with only these restrictions:
1. You may not use it as part of another book
2. In your public copyright statement and code comments, you must credit Marco Bellinaso as the author, Wiley Publishing Inc as the copyright holder - all rights reserved, and we'd appreciate a link to the book on Amazon or another retailer. :)
Unhappyly the TBH is a code written by an author only worried in sell the book and little worried in becoming of the TBH an extensible application and opensource. (I'm not saying that is bad book! It is a great book and great application)
99% of users who use TBH code are not worried in improve the code :(
Excluding “jimibt” and other people(few), the users of this code are only interested in “install and use”.
I am sad for not having more people worried in “install and upgrade... improve...”
Excuse me if I was very hard in my commentary.
But i think this is the first reason for the difference between asp and php.
ASP is part of a Microsoft package (paid)
PHP is part of an shirt's lovers that work together to improve code!
I was surprised when I tried to get information on “treeview design upgrade” and I only found sites that sell this information!
There are many sites with good information like 4guysfromr*lla etc...
but still they are few in my opinion
To turn TBH in a huge community is necessary to change people's head about ASP!
I believe that the Asp.Net 2 StarterKits had been financed by the Microsoft(to encourage people), and with this I say everything.
Hmmm. Before I get into TBH and CMS in general I have to say, Maxxim, I somewhat disagree with you. Do you have to purchase a Microsoft OS that runs IIS to use ASP, yes for sure you do (Though apache has been working on this if I remember correctly) but to assume that the community for ASP is unlike that of PHP I should point you at DotNetNuke which is a completely free and open source CMS wrote entirely in .NET and the community there is great!
But, moving on, I have not used TBH so my views are somewhat skewed to the products that I have worked with. As I said previously, DotNetNuke is a great CMS but I found it a bit difficult and clunky. (Not to mention that the entire thing is wrote in VB ><) All and all though, once you get it up and running and configured it is pretty low maintance to keep your site up.
Kentico, on the other hand, is amazing albeit a for purchase product. I am currently working with a client who has asked for an entire redesign and wanted to use Kentico for the CMS portion of the site. Out of the box the app has pretty much everything you could want and need from a CMS but, in the event that you need some sort of custom functionality, you can simply create a user control that inherits from a specific class and develop as you normally would.
It's a real shame that TBH isn't more widely customised/adopted. after looking at quite a few competing 'products' (for want of a better word) at the beginning of this year, i found THB. I actually did things the other way around and started working on my customisations before reading the book (ooops) and have only dipped in/out where neccesary. THis may be the defining reason for the approach that people take to this framework i.e. follow it as part of the book (perhaps 90%) or find it, work on it, then read the book (the rest).
what i like about TBH (especially now that i use the Flixon Site Generator) is the fact that you can 'predicatably' go into code in any place and find it working exactly in the same way. As long as you keep complex classes and collections simple (i.e. the resulting structure might be quite complex but the base classes are simple instances), then issues arising are very straightfwd to analyse and fix.
I guess there are areas where improvements can be made to the base structure and as i go along, i incorporate any such improvements across the site. I'm kinda at the stage where i could 'generate' and customise a brand new 'simple' site (without using the base TBH download) in the course of 2-3 days. This isn't boastful talk, just a summary of how great the base structure of TBH is (in my opinion) and how well the site generator does the 'base' donkey work.
so in essence, i think TBH is a grossly overlooked development vehicle. The reason for this could well be timing - everyone else wants to be doing Ajax at the moment. I guess those folk want the fix of it all being in there to start with. I prefer to build in the Ajax functionality that i need when required. In fact, i'd challenge most folks to 'recognise' any Ajax functionality in any of my sites as i prefer not to use too much veneer, preferring to use Ajax for update panels etc... rather than highly visual distraction (effect). however, i'd definately say that where i do use Ajax, the benefits are great.
So in a nutshell, TBH = great framework with a small but ardent following. If the 'fanbase' were greater, then i'm sure we'd start to see much greater customisation occurring. For my purposes, i can usually get to the bottom of any required customisations quite quickly. Now, i just need to find a way to 'automate' those customisations :D
Maybe I shouldn't have said CMS. One definition of CMS is a system that allows users to create a web site without having to learn HTML. That's not what I meant. I introduced DreamWeaver at a web devlopment company about seven years ago. It helped the marketing personnel but none of my web coders would touch it. Nor would I have wanted them to. One interpretation of CMS products is that they are today's version of DreamWeaver - easy and quick web development for amatures.
Jimibt talks about being able to produce a new site in two or three days. I talked about much the same thing a couple month's ago. In fact it took me about six weeks to put up my most current site but most of the site that was based closely on TBH was finished in just a couple days. Then I stumbled over SQL Server Reporting and some other things I had never done before. That's OK, I expect new things to have surprises, but I don't want to spend weeks on the routine parts of a web site.
I have been looking at CMS products. Wikipedia lists a lot of them. Most of the low end products are PHP and MySQL. The only Microsoft offering at the bottom of the price list is DotNetNuke.
I tried DNN a while ago but since I had chosen C# over BASIC I wasn't very happy. I use the telerik tools so I looked at SiteFinity, but I didn't see how that gave me very much more.
I built sites years ago based on the IBuySpy kit. DNN evolved out of that. It seemed to me that TBH might do the same - evolve into a web construction framework for developers.
The publisher just wants credit in the code. In fact having a site built on code that is documented in a WROX book is a big selling point.
I'm trying to set up an online course business that I can run out of my house. I want to teach web and database design in a very rich video, audio, and graphical environment. I need to understand a lot of technologies which means I want the basic web framework to be as easy as possible. That's why I've been interested in TBH.
While I'm building my courseware I take little development and teaching projects. I used to be corporate but now I only work on small to medium web applications. In order to compete with the LAMP developers I need something like TBH or DNN. Not really a CMS but a code base for routine and typical elements. I'm interested it the tip about Flixon too.
If I were still corporate I think I would be doing SharePoint. My area is for smaller scale projects now. For example, I'm starting a project for a hospital next week. They want a lot of features but there are only six users (3 doctors). This project is actually a bit too small for TBH and much, much too samll for SharePoint or Vignette. I will end up cutting out a lot of TBH. This is what I meant by being a Beer House developer. Its easier to cut out TBH modules than it is to build something from scratch.
Have you guys looked at Community Server? That's also well documented, written in C#, and has a Wrox book written on it. But it requires a license if you want to use it without the little ad at the bottom of the page. This is high-powered software that is quite complex, so it's a little difficult to tear into it in order to make changes. http://communityserver.org/
There's also Rainbow, which was originally intended to be similar to DotNetNuke (DNN), based on IBuySpy, but it's written in C#. Although it's nice, it's not as good as DNN. http://www.rainbowportal.net/
I'm not trying to steer people away from TBH, but I want you to be aware of some other options and I think it's best to consider other ways of doing things before you decide on your own core architecture.