search

dotnet / AspNetCore.Docs

Documentation for ASP.NET Core
https://docs.microsoft.com/aspnet/core
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
12.6k stars 25.29k forks source link

Update layout for RP #8030

Closed Rick-Anderson closed 6 years ago

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

Update layout for RP

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

I could try this, if no one else is on it? What are you looking to have changed?

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

Sounds great. It's MVC with controllers. I'd rewrite it with Razor Pages featured but also list MVC paths.

remove web-project-views.png and replace with listing the layout path for RP and MVC with controllers and views.

An example _Layout.cshtml: with the current RP layout file (not with individual user accounts). Note layout file is italic, not `code fenced` as in the article.

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

Great. I’ll get going on it and reach out with any questions....

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

Question for you @Rick-Anderson: what is the approach of RP vs. MVC? Like, in this document should it be: "Here's Option A, here's option B" or "We prefer RP because X, but you can also use MVC if you want"? Any idea of the Microsoft approach/preference?

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

I would present the RP approach first. Follow that with the MVC approach. No need to say RP is recommended.

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

@Rick-Anderson: So this article is under the MVC chapter:

image

Does that not confuse readers? Should this sit here? I know it's more of a general topic, but if users are browsing to learn about MVC, will the Razor Pages content be in the way?

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

@daveabrock we should move it. We can move it in another PR. @tdykstra owns the TOC and will know where to move it.

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

OK. I'll update the document in the MVC section and we'll work with @tdykstra on where to move it. Sounds good.

tdykstra commented 6 years ago

RP is still "MVC", just not controllers and views, right? So MVC ToC node wouldn't be expected to have only cv-content. We're looking at a thorough overhaul of the ToC, but i would say this is OK for now. If we're not consistent about differentiating RP vs. controllers-views rather than RP vs. MVC, that might be something to watch for and fix so people get used to thinking of MVC as comprising both RP and cv.

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

RP is still "MVC", just not controllers and views, right?

I don't think so. Even if that was true, that's not the perception and not what you would think if you were on MVC in the TOC.

daveabrock commented 6 years ago

Just to offer a non-Microsoft perspective (and a new guy here on this repo, so apologies about any assumptions I might be making), this seems really confusing. And I bet it is even more confusing to people who are coming into .NET Core fresh.

Casually explained, Razor Pages is a "slimmed down" version of Microsoft's MVC framework. But if I'm browsing to an MVC section, expecting model-view-controller information and am told "use this instead" I would be very, very confused and potentially frustrated. It might go a long way in differentiating between the two somewhere (if not already - and if it is, apologies) because I'm of the opinion that grouping RP with MVC would require clarification at a minimum. I know the repo has been getting some questions about whether to use MVC or RP, and that might help.

Thoughts?

Rick-Anderson commented 6 years ago

@daveabrock agreed. I think it's really confusing to customers. Tom will look at revamping the TOC so we don't need to worry now.