Comments on: MS MVC Gets Blocks From Rails http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/ Abstract && Concrete Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:14:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Technical Jargon » Helpers for the MS MVC Framework http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-13070 Technical Jargon » Helpers for the MS MVC Framework Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:50:22 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-13070 [...] rendering (see this post on Adam Tybor’s blog for more [...] [...] rendering (see this post on Adam Tybor’s blog for more [...]

]]> By: Justice~! http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-44 Justice~! Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:05:21 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-44 I like the page you are serving up there ;) I just started going back through these entries in prep for the eventual return of my machine (still don't have it). I like the page you are serving up there ;)
I just started going back through these entries in prep for the eventual return of my machine (still don’t have it).

]]> By: Adam Tybor http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-33 Adam Tybor Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:33:43 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-33 Thanks Phil, That solution is much better. Jeremy pointed that one out too. Thank God for blogs, otherwise we would have some ugly code with reflection, type caching, and dynamic methods. Thanks Phil,

That solution is much better. Jeremy pointed that one out too.

Thank God for blogs, otherwise we would have some ugly code with reflection, type caching, and dynamic methods.

]]> By: Haacked http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-29 Haacked Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:27:34 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-29 I sent an email to Sergio with another approach to do this that doesn't require reflection. I used a Response Filter and well timed calls to Flush(). I sent an email to Sergio with another approach to do this that doesn’t require reflection. I used a Response Filter and well timed calls to Flush().

]]> By: Jeremy Skinner http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-28 Jeremy Skinner Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:50:08 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-28 Hmm...the comment box seems to have lost my angle brackets. That last line was supposed to say "I was surprised that %= % didn’t call Response.Write directly" Hmm…the comment box seems to have lost my angle brackets. That last line was supposed to say “I was surprised that %= % didn’t call Response.Write directly”

]]> By: Jeremy Skinner http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-27 Jeremy Skinner Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:43:25 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-27 Hi Adam, It turns out that _w references the same instance as Response.Output so I used a custom Stream object and set the Response.Filter property to intercept each call to _w.Write. This works so long as Response.Buffer is set to false. Its certainly a hack...but I'm not sure if its more or less of a hack than using reflection. I was surprised that didn't call Response.Write directly. That would have made things much easier ;) Hi Adam,

It turns out that _w references the same instance as Response.Output so I used a custom Stream object and set the Response.Filter property to intercept each call to _w.Write. This works so long as Response.Buffer is set to false.

Its certainly a hack…but I’m not sure if its more or less of a hack than using reflection. I was surprised that didn’t call Response.Write directly. That would have made things much easier ;)

]]> By: Adam Tybor http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-26 Adam Tybor Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:23:34 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-26 @Jeremy You mentioned you were already doing something similar, how are you switching the writers to capture the output? VB.Net support is going to be tough. Just googling the issue it already seems to be problem for vb guys because so many examples now are c# with anonymous delegates and now lambdas. I don't think the using pattern will work, it almost seems like you will need a separate function in a script block for the delegate. As I understand it, you should still be able to switch writers so you can move in out of <% %> blocks to get the same effect. @Jeremy
You mentioned you were already doing something similar, how are you switching the writers to capture the output?

VB.Net support is going to be tough. Just googling the issue it already seems to be problem for vb guys because so many examples now are c# with anonymous delegates and now lambdas. I don’t think the using pattern will work, it almost seems like you will need a separate function in a script block for the delegate. As I understand it, you should still be able to switch writers so you can move in out of < % %> blocks to get the same effect.

]]> By: Jeremy Skinner http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-25 Jeremy Skinner Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:59:14 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-25 MVB....pfft ;) I agree with you about lambdas. I was quite disappointed to that VB only has a half-hearted implementation. MVB….pfft ;)
I agree with you about lambdas. I was quite disappointed to that VB only has a half-hearted implementation.

]]> By: Sergio Pereira http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-24 Sergio Pereira Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:22:46 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-24 VB?? Who uses that ? :) It's MVC, not MVB :) It's been years since I stopped tracking VB features and I'm really shocked to learn that VB still doesn't have anonymous methods. I'm glad I don't do VB anymore because having used lambdas now I'm hooked up on it and I wish I'll never have to use a language that doesn't have them anymore. Any VB expert to suggest an alternative syntax or what would be a natural syntax for VB? Maybe the "Using() ... End Using" block? VB?? Who uses that ? :) It’s MVC, not MVB :) It’s been years since I stopped tracking VB features and I’m really shocked to learn that VB still doesn’t have anonymous methods. I’m glad I don’t do VB anymore because having used lambdas now I’m hooked up on it and I wish I’ll never have to use a language that doesn’t have them anymore.
Any VB expert to suggest an alternative syntax or what would be a natural syntax for VB? Maybe the “Using() … End Using” block?

]]> By: Jeremy Skinner http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-23 Jeremy Skinner Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:04:31 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-23 Hi Adam I really like this approach - I've been using a similar technique for some helpers I've been working on. One issue that comes to mind is that VB does not support multi-line lambdas. If this becomes part of MvcContrib, do you think it would be a good idea to support an alternative syntax for VB users, or leave this as a C#-only feature? Cheers, Jeremy Hi Adam

I really like this approach - I’ve been using a similar technique for some helpers I’ve been working on.

One issue that comes to mind is that VB does not support multi-line lambdas. If this becomes part of MvcContrib, do you think it would be a good idea to support an alternative syntax for VB users, or leave this as a C#-only feature?

Cheers,

Jeremy

]]> By: Bill Pierce http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-22 Bill Pierce Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:48:27 +0000 http://abombss.com/blog/2007/12/28/ms-mvc-gets-blocks-from-rails/#comment-22 Beautiful. Beautiful.

]]>