From what I understand, the newer features of MVC2 relate more to the View and rendering controls than anything else. So if you're using the 1 page app model and having the UI rendered from ExtJS files, then you don't really need most of that imho and MVC 1.x should be plenty. Unless of course you are using the View to generate the JS/HTML, then maybe it would be useful. Other than that, what is in the 2.0 version that you would really need? I'm curious as I haven't looked in depth at it.
I agree with you almost 100%. When the client-side is written entirely in Ext JS, there is nothing new and revolutionary in ASP.NET MVC 2.0, that you can benefit from. We are using MVC 1.0 at work and not planning to move to 2.0 even after it is released. However, people have a choice and should be able to use Ext.Direct with MVC 2.0 if they want to. I was working on the changes required for it last night and I am happy to say, that I am nearly done. I will let you all know, once I am finished.
Released v0.9.0 - Major update!
Ext.Direct.Mvc Homepage* Changed configuration requirements. Made it much easier to configure. Setting apiUrl and routerUrl config options is no longer required and should be deleted from Web.config of your web project. The API path is now hardcoded to "/Direct/Api" and Router path is "/Direct/Router", and cannot be changed.
* Removed DirectHttpModule class, it is not needed anymore. So the related lines in Web.config file of your web project where you register this module should also be deleted.
* Removed DirectMvcRouteHandler.cs and DirectMvcHandler.cs - they are no longer needed either.
* Support for ASP.NET MVC 2.0 RC
Please read the documentation about how to configure and use Ext.Direct.Mvc.
Thanks for the update!
- new /Direct/Api url...that's only possible if you configure asp.net to handle all requests.. why not /Direct.ashx/Api?
- debug is optional, but why not remove it completely and follow the system.web/@debug entry.
Thanks for providing a great library. It has saved me a lot of time and it works great.
I have a simple feature request: the ability to change the url for the Router. Currently it is hard-coded to generate Direct/Router. I am deploying an app in an environment that is forcing me to use Classic Mode in IIS. Because of this, I am having to append .mvc to all the controller names in order to get IIS to route these requests to ASP.Net as opposed to trying to serve up static content.
I was able to modify my main site page to include ~/Direct.mvc/Api, however subsequent calls to retrieve data still go to /Direct/Router, as opposed to /Direct.mvc/Router
I rebuilt the source code to include an additional parameter in the web.config that will allow an alternate url for the router. If you could include something like this in a future release, that would be great, then I wouldn't have to rebuild the solution each time
Here is a reference for getting MVC to work in Classic mode (thus requiring the .mvc extension on controllers)
I don't have much time to look into this. Can you please post your fix here? I'll see if I can add it to the library.