2

Good day!

I'm planning to upgrade WebForms application and I have two possible choices:

  • Write it in ASP.NET MVC 2.0 with WebForms view engine and upgrade it to 3.0 when it will be out

  • Write it using ASP.NET MVC 3.0 RC with Razor as view engine

It seems that Razor is the only 3.0 feature I really can take advantage off for this task.

The launch date for application is Q1 of 2011 so there is a chance that ASP.NET MVC 3.0 will come out as RTM.

So, is Razor mature enough?

artvolk
  • 9,448
  • 11
  • 56
  • 85
  • 1
    Risk assessment is a very personal thing. I'm fearless and a little crazy will use anything with a golive license. Others won't use code that hasn't been released for at least a year. – John Farrell Nov 22 '10 at 14:29
  • And yes, a small detail -- app will run on IIS 6.0 :( I can change the version, but I can setup catch all and almost anything on it. – artvolk Nov 22 '10 at 14:31

2 Answers2

1

There is more to MVC 3 than Razor, but you aren't specific so will hold my peace.

As regards Razor, it is just a ViewEngine. No different to Spark, NHaml, etc. So even MS can get that right first time out. Is it mature? No. Mature enough? Well, at least it is not decrepit like web forms... Why write XML when you don't have to?

I am writing a new app in MVC 3 and so far, the only issue I have had is with a couple of helpers that return void. It was easily solved, see Adapting a custom Html Helper for Razor

As MVC 3 is at the RC stage, you should be fine with your time line.

The killer for me is future proofing. I am definitely going to use Razor in future, so all new stuff is best written in what I will be using.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
awrigley
  • 13,481
  • 10
  • 83
  • 129
1

From what I've read I don't think upgrading a 2.0 app to mvc 3.0 will be that difficult. So I am sticking with the stable code for now, and then upgrading once a stable release of 3.0 is out. I think it will be just as much work to start with 3.0 and then fix all the little changes upon the actual release of it.

Bottom line for me is that MVC 2.0 is fully functional and works with few issues. They have not called 3.0 a stable version yet for a reason.

CatDadCode
  • 58,507
  • 61
  • 212
  • 318
  • It's true that they did not call it stable yet, but as far as I know they released these preview version primarily for the feedback and suggestions then anything else. I've been playing with Beta and RC and they seem pretty stable to me. – gligoran Nov 22 '10 at 15:35
  • I'm not saying it is broken, I'm simply saying that they haven't called it stable. They will only call it stable when they are as confident as they can be in the product. And I'm not totally confident in something until those that created it are, even if it seems fine to me. I've been bitten in the past by jumping the gun on something. I don't mind not being right on the cutting edge as long as my projects function properly. – CatDadCode Nov 22 '10 at 16:11
  • A stable version is what is called RTM. The RC version is just part of the normal development process. – awrigley Nov 22 '10 at 16:55
  • All I'm saying is that when they call it a release and not a release "candidate" then they are obviously confident the product is stable and ready for market. That is when I am comfortable adopting it. – CatDadCode Nov 22 '10 at 22:22