Comments on: MvcFutures http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mvcfutures Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Tony Rasa http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/comment-page-1/#comment-54441 Tony Rasa Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:00:53 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/#comment-54441 <a href="#comment-54436" rel="nofollow">@Carl Hörberg</a> Oooo now that is slick. http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=T4MVC_doc&referringTitle=T4MVC Shows some examples of usage. @Carl Hörberg
Oooo now that is slick. http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=T4MVC_doc&referringTitle=T4MVC
Shows some examples of usage.

]]> By: Carl Hörberg http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/comment-page-1/#comment-54436 Carl Hörberg Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:05:40 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/#comment-54436 Another problem with the expression based ActionLinks is that they don't take the [ActionName] attribute in account when generating the url. A much better idea is to use T4MVC (http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=T4MVC). Another problem with the expression based ActionLinks is that they don’t take the [ActionName] attribute in account when generating the url. A much better idea is to use T4MVC (http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=T4MVC).

]]> By: Tony Rasa http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/comment-page-1/#comment-54435 Tony Rasa Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:42:46 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/#comment-54435 <a href="#comment-54396" rel="nofollow">@Julian Birch</a> Very interesting - could you elaborate on this further? It's not a problem that we've run into (yet) but we've been using dedicated ViewModels for the views instead of db entities and then using AutoMapper to do the binding. So perhaps we've just been lucky/ignorant. @Julian Birch
Very interesting – could you elaborate on this further? It’s not a problem that we’ve run into (yet) but we’ve been using dedicated ViewModels for the views instead of db entities and then using AutoMapper to do the binding. So perhaps we’ve just been lucky/ignorant.

]]> By: Julian Birch http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/comment-page-1/#comment-54396 Julian Birch Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:04:09 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/#comment-54396 It's not as useful as you might hope. Here's the problem: assume you've set up a model binder to load entities from the database. Perfectly sensible thing to do, shortens your code and makes everything readable. Problem is, you call the Futures method from the view, and typically you don't pass database entities to the view. I don't think there's a sensible way of using this method and using entity model binding. It’s not as useful as you might hope. Here’s the problem: assume you’ve set up a model binder to load entities from the database. Perfectly sensible thing to do, shortens your code and makes everything readable. Problem is, you call the Futures method from the view, and typically you don’t pass database entities to the view.

I don’t think there’s a sensible way of using this method and using entity model binding.

]]> By: Paco http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/comment-page-1/#comment-54385 Paco Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:52:38 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2010/03/13/mvcfutures/#comment-54385 This was already in the asp.net mvc 1 futures dll. Another potential problem is that this method becomes unusable slow when you have a lot of routes. This was already in the asp.net mvc 1 futures dll. Another potential problem is that this method becomes unusable slow when you have a lot of routes.

]]>