Comments on: Things I learned about ASP.NET MVC 2 at the jQuery Conference http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:16:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: John Sheehan http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-14896 John Sheehan Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:05:55 +0000 http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/#comment-14896 Scott & Kazi,<br>You are correct about the placement and I should have mentioned that I was aware of the performance reasons for putting it there. I don't have any issue with the placement in itself, other than the HtmlHelper that's putting it there is not in the same place as the code. This signals to me that they're going down the road of starting to abstract away what's going on under the covers and I don't want to go down that road again. It's not a big deal though, just something I found curious. With a more descriptive name of what the method is doing, I'm on board. Scott & Kazi,
You are correct about the placement and I should have mentioned that I was aware of the performance reasons for putting it there. I don't have any issue with the placement in itself, other than the HtmlHelper that's putting it there is not in the same place as the code. This signals to me that they're going down the road of starting to abstract away what's going on under the covers and I don't want to go down that road again. It's not a big deal though, just something I found curious. With a more descriptive name of what the method is doing, I'm on board.

]]> By: John Sheehan http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-14761 John Sheehan Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:05:55 +0000 http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/#comment-14761 Scott & Kazi,<br>You are correct about the placement and I should have mentioned that I was aware of the performance reasons for putting it there. I don't have any issue with the placement in itself, other than the HtmlHelper that's putting it there is not in the same place as the code. This signals to me that they're going down the road of starting to abstract away what's going on under the covers and I don't want to go down that road again. It's not a big deal though, just something I found curious. With a more descriptive name of what the method is doing, I'm on board. Scott & Kazi,
You are correct about the placement and I should have mentioned that I was aware of the performance reasons for putting it there. I don't have any issue with the placement in itself, other than the HtmlHelper that's putting it there is not in the same place as the code. This signals to me that they're going down the road of starting to abstract away what's going on under the covers and I don't want to go down that road again. It's not a big deal though, just something I found curious. With a more descriptive name of what the method is doing, I'm on board.

]]> By: Kazi Manzur Rashid http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-14759 Kazi Manzur Rashid Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:19:08 +0000 http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/#comment-14759 1. I think it is one of the best practise as per YSlow to put your JS at the bottom, I do not see any issue over here.<br><br>2. Not Sure why they need this extra parameter, There is already AcceptVerbs and Route constraint to handle tis. 1. I think it is one of the best practise as per YSlow to put your JS at the bottom, I do not see any issue over here.

2. Not Sure why they need this extra parameter, There is already AcceptVerbs and Route constraint to handle tis.

]]> By: KaziManzurRashid http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-14758 KaziManzurRashid Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:18:53 +0000 http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/#comment-14758 1. I think it is one of the best practise as per YSlow to put your JS at the bottom, I do not see any issue over here.<br><br>2. Not Sure why they need this extra parameter, There is already AcceptVerbs and Route constraint to handle tis. 1. I think it is one of the best practise as per YSlow to put your JS at the bottom, I do not see any issue over here.

2. Not Sure why they need this extra parameter, There is already AcceptVerbs and Route constraint to handle tis.

]]> By: Scott http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-14756 Scott Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:21:17 +0000 http://john-sheehan.com/blog/things-i-learned-about-asp-net-mvc-2-at-the-jquery-conference/#comment-14756 RE: putting the JSON output for the client validation at the end of the page - There are a few technical and performance reasons for doing that. Moving you JS to the bottom of the page allows all of the elements to render before the script is executed. Which means that 1) the page appears faster to the user 2) the elements are present before any JS runs so that events can be attached to them. (although this really isn't necessary with most modern JS libraries as most of the provide some kind of DOM-Ready event for you to handle.) RE: putting the JSON output for the client validation at the end of the page – There are a few technical and performance reasons for doing that. Moving you JS to the bottom of the page allows all of the elements to render before the script is executed. Which means that 1) the page appears faster to the user 2) the elements are present before any JS runs so that events can be attached to them. (although this really isn't necessary with most modern JS libraries as most of the provide some kind of DOM-Ready event for you to handle.)

]]>