Search Results

Search found 108 results on 5 pages for 'jakob ehn'.

Page 5/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 

  • Breadcrumbs in a modern web application, make sense? [on hold]

    - by Xtreme Biker
    I'm currently beginning with the development of a new web application. The whole web application is going to be bookmarkable and all the pages accesible via GET requests and url parameters. Having said that, let's suppose I've got three entities in my application, Customer, Team and City. Each Customer and Team belong to a city and I've got a city-detail page which displays the detail for a concrete city. So next navigation cases are possible: Customers - Customer detail (id=2) - City detail (id=3) Football teams - Team detail (id=5) - City detail (id=3) Cities - City detail (id=3) There are three possible ways of ending up in a city detail view. My question is, does it make sense to implement a breadcrumb to show such a history, having it available in the browser itself? Would it be more appropiate to show a breadcrumb with the last case, no matter where we're coming from (hierarchical breadcrumb)? That's what Jakob Nielsen points out here: Offering users a Hansel-and-Gretel-style history trail is basically useless, because it simply duplicates functionality offered by the Back button, which is the Web’s second-most-used feature. A history trail can also be confusing: users often wander in circles or go to the wrong site sections. Having each point in a confused progression at the top of the current page doesn’t offer much help. Finally, a history trail is useless for users who arrive directly at a page deep within the site. Also, even if the history trail seems the most natural way to implement it, it requires an extra effort to keep the whole track being HTTP a stateless mean.

    Read the article

  • How to build Visual Studio Setup projects (.vdproj) with TFS 2010 Build ?

    - by Vishal
    Out of the box, Team Foundation Server 2010 Build does not support building of setup projects (.vdproj). Although, you can modify DefaultTemplate.xaml or create your own in order to achieve this. I had to try bunch of different blog post's and finally got it working with a mixture of all those posts.   Since you don’t have to go through this pain again, I have uploaded the Template which you can use right away : https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=65B2671F6B93CDE9!310 Download and CheckIn this template into your source control. Modify your Build Definition to use this template. Unless you have CheckedIn the template, it wont show up in the template selection section in the process task of build definition. In your Visual Studio Solution Configuration Manager, make sure you specify to build the setup project also. You might get this warning in your build result: “The project file “*.vdproj” is not support by MSBuild and cannot be build. Hope it helps. Thanks, Vishal Mody Reference blog posts I had used: http://geekswithblogs.net/jakob/archive/2010/05/14/building-visual-studio-setup-projects-with-tfs-2010-team-build.aspx http://donovanbrown.com/post/I-need-to-build-a-project-that-is-not-supported-by-MSBuild.aspx http://lajak.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/build-biztalk-deployment-framework-projects-using-tfs2010/

    Read the article

  • User Interface design books/resources for programmers

    - by mmacaulay
    Hi, I'm going to make my monthly trip to the bookstore soon and I'm kind of interested in learning some user interface and/or design stuff - mostly web related, what are some good books I should look at? One that I've seen come up frequently in the past is Don't Make Me Think, which looks promising. I'm aware of the fact that programmers often don't make great designers, and as such this is more of a potential hobby thing than a move to be a professional designer. I'm also looking for any good web resources on this topic. I subscribed to Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox newsletter, for instance, although it seems to come only once a month or so. Thanks! Somewhat related questions: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/75863/what-are-the-best-resources-for-designing-user-interfaces http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7973/user-interface-design

    Read the article

  • How can I simplify this user interface?

    - by Bears will eat you
    I'm writing an internal-tools webapp; one of the central pages in this tool has a whole bunch of related commands the user can execute by clicking one of a number of buttons on the page, like this: Ideally, all of the buttons would fit on one line. Ordinarily I'd do this by changing each widget from a button with a (sometimes long) text label to a simple, compact icon - e.g. could be replaced by a familiar disk icon: Unfortunately, I don't think I can do this for every button on this particular page. Some of the command buttons just don't have good visual analogs - "VDS List". Or, if I needed to add another button in the future for some other kind of list, I'd need two icons that both communicate "list-ness" and which list. So, I'm still considering this option, but I don't love it. So it's come time for me to add yet another button to this section (don't you love internal tools?). There's not enough room on that single line to fit the new button. Aside from the icon solution I already mentioned, what would be a good* way to simplify/declutter/reduce or otherwise improve this UI? *As per Jakob Nielsen's article, I'd like to think that a dropdown menu is not the solution.

    Read the article

  • adress-chunk: separate data stored in one collumn - into three (street, postal-code, town)

    - by zero
    hello dear community. Hello dear friends form all over the planet first of all - this is a great great forum. I like this place to share the ideas. It is so great to see such a supportive place - featuring the knowledge exchange! today i have the following thing to discuss: i want to separate the following data that are stored in one column of a calc-spreadsheet: See the following data: You see that there are the following categories:_ steet, postal-code, town All the data are stored in only one Colum; Well to be honest: i want to separate them into three colums steet, postal-code, town see the data: what can i do? note - you see that there are commas inbetween the enties: and besides this we see that we have a postal-code with four digits: that is a good thing. Perhaps we can use this as a marker that helps us to separate the data?! Perhaps See a data-sample! Here you can see some exceptions: eg. the town that has two words combinde with a "-" ... or somethims without any signs and characters... see the following... as an example: Max-Bader-Platz 1, 5620 Schwarzach im Pongau Pestalozzistraße 4, 9990 Nussdorf-Debant Schulstraße 4, 5162 Obertrum am See But i guess that this means no problem... What do you think about this? I am very very interested to get your opinion! i look forward to hear from you! regards see a snipped of the dataset - that is stored in one column -[b]Goal: [/b]i want to separate the datas into three collumns... : Schulweg 6, 9871 Seeboden Khevenhüllerstraße 45, 4861 Schörfling Franz Xaver Rennstr.18, 6460 Imst Schulstraße 4, 5162 Obertrum am See Schulweg 6, 7432 Oberschützen Pestalozzistraße 4, 9990 Nussdorf-Debant Niederndorf bei Kufstein 53c, 6342 Niederndorf bei Kufstein Hauptschulstraße 18, 2183 Neusiedl an der Zaya Seeweg 14, 5202 Neumarkt am Wallersee Europaplatz 1, 8820 Neumarkt in Steiermark Schulstraße 7, 4212 Neumarkt im Mühlkreis Schulstraße 20, 4720 Neumarkt im Hausruckkreis Bahnhofstr. 10, 4872 Neukirchen an der Vöckla Schulstraße 5b, 4780 Schärding Reitbergstraße 2, 4311 Schwertberg Europaplatz 1, 2320 Schwechat Am Schulberg 5, 3931 Schweiggers Waidach 8, 6130 Schwaz Waidach 8, 6130 Schwaz Max-Bader-Platz 1, 5620 Schwarzach im Pongau Markt 29, 2662 Schwarzau im Gebirge Hofsteigstraße 68, 6858 Schwarzach Gmundner Straße 7, 4690 Schwanenstadt Mühlfeldstraße 1, 4690 Schwanenstadt Mainsdorferstraße 18, 8541 Schwanberg Jakob Stemer-Weg 3, 6780 Schruns Obere Umfahrungsstraße 16, 2432 Schwadorf bei Wien Battloggstraße 54, 6780 Schruns Schloss-Straße 19, 5020 Salzburg Schillerplatz 2, 8280 Fürstenfeld Erzherzog-Johann-Str. 400, 8970 Schladming Schulgasse 261, 8811 Scheifling i look forward to hear from you!! regards

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio &amp; TFS 11 &ndash; List of extensions and upgrades

    - by terje
    This post is a list of the extensions I recommend for use with Visual Studio 11. It’s coming up all the time – what to install, where are the download sites, last version, etc etc, and thus I thought it better to post it here and keep it updated. The basics are Visual Studio 11 connected to a Team Foundation Server 11. Note that we now are at Beta time, and that also many live in a side-by-side environment with Visual Studio 2010.  The side-by-side is supported by VS 11. However, if you installed a component supporting VS11 before you installed VS11, then you need to reinstall it.  The VSIX installer will understand that it is to apply those only for VS11, and will not touch – nor remove – the same for VS2010. A good example here is the Power Commands. The list is more or less in priority order. The focus is to get a setup which can be used for a complete coding experience for the whole ALM process. The list of course reflects what I use for my work , so it is by no means complete, and for some of the tools there are equally useful alternatives. Many components have not yet arrived with VS11 support.  I will add them as they arrive.  The components directly associated with Visual Studio from Microsoft should be common, see the Microsoft column. If you still need the VS2010 extensions, here they are: The extensions for VS 2010.   Components ready for VS 11, both upgrades and new ones Product Notes Latest Version License Applicable to Microsoft TFS Power Tools Beta 111 Side-by-side with TFS 2010 should work, but remove the Shell Extension from the TFS 2010 power tool first. March 2012(11.0.50321.0) Free TFS integration Yes ReSharper EAP for Beta 11 (updates very often, nearly daily) 7.0.3.261 pr. 16/3/2012 Free as EAP, Licensed later Coding & Quality No Power Commands1 Just reinstall, even if you already have it for VS2010. The reinstall will then apply it to VS 11 1.0.2.3 Free Coding Yes Visualization and Modelling SDK for beta Info here and here. Another download site and info here. Also download from MSDN Subscription site. Requires VS 11 Beta SDK 11 Free now, otherwise Part of MSDN Subscription Modeling Yes Visual Studio 11 Beta SDK Published 16.2.2012     Yes Visual Studio 11 Feedback tool1 Use this to really ease the process of sending bugs back to Microsoft. 1.1 Free as prerelase Visual Studio Yes             #1 Get via Visual Studio’s Tools | Extension Manager (or The Code Gallery). (From Adam : All these are auto updated by the Extension Manager in Visual Studio) #2 Works with ultimate only Components we wait for, not yet in a VS 11 version Product Notes Latest Version License Applicable to Microsoft       Coding Yes Inmeta Build Explorer     Free TFS integration No Build Manager Community Build Manager. Info here from Jakob   Free TFS Integration No Code Contracts Coming real soon   Free Coding & Quality Yes Code Contracts Editor Extensions     Free Coding & Quality Yes Web Std Update     Free Coding (Web) Yes (MSFT) Web Essentials     Free Coding (Web) Yes (MSFT) DotPeek It says up to .Net 4.0, but some tests indicates it seems to be able to handle 4.5. 1.0.0.7999 Free Coding/Investigation No Just Decompile Also says up to .net 4.0   Free Coding/Investigation No dotTrace     Licensed Quality No NDepend   Licensed Quality No tangible T4 editor     Lite version Free (Good enough) Coding (T4 templates) No Pex Moles are now integrated and improved in VS 11 as a new library called Fakes.     Coding & Unit Testing Yes Components which are now integrated into VS 11 Product Notes Productivity Power Tools Features integrated into VS11, with a few exceptions, I don’t think you will miss those. Fakes  Was Moles in 2010. Fakes is improved and made into a product.  NuGet Manager Included in the install, but still an extension package. Info here. Product installation, upgrades and patches for VS/TFS 11   Product Notes Date Applicable to Visual Studio 11 & TFS 11 Beta This is the beta release, and you are free to download and try it out. March 2012 Visual Studio and TFS SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1 Cumulative Update 4 The TFS 11 requires the CU1 at least, but you should go up to at least CU4, since this update solves a ghost record problem that otherwise may cause your TFS database to not release records the way it should when you clean it up, see this post for more information on that issue.  Oct 2011 SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1

    Read the article

  • VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

    - by Tarun Arora
    “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC2 - usage of LINQ-generated class (validation problem)

    - by ile
    There are few things not clear to me about ASP.NET MV2. In database I have table Contacts with several fields, and there is an additional field XmlFields of which type is xml. In that field are stored additional description fields. There are 4 classes: Contact class which corresponds to Contact table and is defined by default when creating LINQ classes ContactListView class which inherits Contact class and has some additional properties ContactXmlView class that contains fields from XmlFields field ContactDetailsView class which merges ContactListView and ContactXmlView into one class and this one is used to display data in view pages ContactListView class has re-defined some properties from Contact class (so that I can add [Required] filter used for validation) - but I get warning message: 'ObjectTest.Models.Contacts.ContactListView.FirstName' hides inherited member 'SA.Model.Contact.FirstName'. Use the new keyword if hiding was intended. ContactDetailsView class is also used in a form when creating new contact and adding it to database. I am not sure if this is correct way, and the warning message confuses me a bit. Any advise about this? Thanks, Ile EDIT According to Jakob's instructions I tried it from scratch: [MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))] public partial class Person { } public class Person_Validation { [Required] string FirstName { get; set; } [Required] string LastName { get; set; } [Required] int Age { get; set; } } In Controller I have this: [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Person person, FormCollection collection) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { try { personRepository.Add(person); personRepository.Save(); } catch { return View(person); } } return RedirectToAction("Index"); } View: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Validate.Models.Person>" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="TitleContent" runat="server"> Create </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <h2>Create</h2> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.FirstName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.FirstName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.FirstName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.LastName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.LastName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.LastName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Age) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Age) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Age) %> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Create" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> <div> <%= Html.ActionLink("Back to List", "Index") %> </div> </asp:Content> When posting new person with no values, nothing happens (page is just reloaded). When posting with some values, person is added to db. I have no idea what am I doing wrong.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5