PREFACE

Contents

Acknowledgement Certificate Preface

1. About ASP.NET
What ASP.NET Why ASP.NET WEB Ser ice! WEB Control! "ow Web Ser er E#ecute $ile

%. Plan of Pro&ect 'e elo(ment ). 'etail! of Pro&ect 'e elo(ed

Sy!tem *e+uirement ,ntroduction of .NET .NET Sy!tem Cla!! -ibrary Win $orm

.. ASP.NET E#ecution /odel 0. ,NT*1'2CT,1N T1 PETSP1,NT.C1/ 3. S1$TWA*E *E42,*E/ENT ANA-5S,S 6.'ATA $-1W ',A7*A/ 8.TEST,N7 9.WEBS,TE PA7ES 0. *E$E*ENCES

ii

2. ABOUT ASP.NET
2.1 WHAT IS ASP.NET

ASP.NET ,! A :ey Part of The Wider /icro!oft .NET ,nitiati e ; /icro!oft<! NewA((lication 'e elo(ment Platform. .NET i! Both An A((lication Architecture To *e(lace The Window! 'NA /odel And A Set of Tool! ; Ser ice! ; A((lication! and Ser er! Ba!ed Around The .NET $ramework and Common -anguage *untime =C-*>. *ather Than ?u!t Being ASP ..@ or an ,ncremental 2(grade ; ASP.NET i! Acom(lete *ewrite $rom The 7round 2(; 2!ing all The Ad anced $eature! .NET /ake! A ailable. ASP.NET Can Take Ad antage of All That .NET "a! To offer ; ,ncluding Su((ort $or Around %@ or /ore .NET -anguage! $rom CA To Perl.NET ; and The $ull Set of .NET $ramework Software -ibrarie!. Web A((lication! Written in ASP.NET are $a!t ; Efficient ; /anageable; Scalable ; and $le#ible; But ; Abo e all ; Ea!y to 2nder!tand And To Code. Com(onent!

iii

and Web A((lication! are

All Com(iled .NET 1b&ect! Written in the Same -anguage! ;

And They offer the Same $unctionality ; So No need to lea e the ASP En ironment $or Purely $unctional *ea!on!. 5ou<ll "a e -e!! Need $or ThirdB(arty Com(onent! .With a $ew -ine! of Code ; ASP.NET Can talk to C/- ; Ser e a! or Con!ume a Web Ser ice ; 2(load $ile! ; DScreen Scra(eE a *emote Site ; or 7enerate an ,mage. With the .NET Framework and ASP.NET , Microsoft Has Not Just Shown itself to e a !ontender in We" #e$elo%ment Technolo&ies , ut man' !ommentators Also elie$e Microsoft Has Taken The (ead . ASP.NET is well E)ui%%ed For an' task 'ou Want to %ut to it, from uildin& *ntranets to E+ "usiness or E+commerce Me&asites. Microsoft has "een $er' !areful to *nclude the Functionalit' and Fle,i"ilit' #e$elo%ers will -e)uire , While Maintainin& the Eas'+ to+use Nature of ASP With ASP.NET 'ou Now Ha$e a True !hoice of (an&ua&es. All the .NET (an&ua&es ha$e access to the Same Foundation !lass (i"raries , The Same T'%e of S'stems , E)ual o".ect orientation and inheritance a"ilities, and full intero%era"ilit' with e,istin& !/M com%onents. 0ou can use the same knowled&e and code in$estment for e$er'thin& from We" de$elo%ment to com%onent de$elo%ment or enter%rise s'stems, and de$elo%ers do not ha$e to "e concerned a"out differences in AP*s or $aria"le t'%e con$ersions, or e$en de%lo'ment. ASP.NET incor%orates all the im%ortant standards of our time, such as 1M( and S/AP, %lus with A#/.NET and the foundation class li"raries, the' are ar&ua"l' easier to im%lement than in an' other technolo&', includin& Ja$a. An ASP.NET %ro&rammer still onl' needs a com%uter with Note%adand the a"ilit' to FTP to write ASP code, "ut now with the .NET Framework command+line tools and the %latform2s 1M(+"ased confi&uration, this is truer than "efore. Microsoft has included in the .NET Framework an incredi"l' rich feature set of li"rar' classes, from network+handlin& functions for dealin& with Transmission !ontrol Protocol3*nternet Protocol 4T!P3*P5 and #omain Name S'stem 4#NS5, throu&h to 1M( data and We" Ser$ices, to &ra%hic drawin&. *n the %ast, the limitations of ASP scri%tin& meant com%onents were -e)uired for functionalit' reasons, not .ust for architectural reasons. ASP.NET has access to the same functionalit' and uses the same lan&ua&esin which 'ou would create com%onents, so now com%onents are an architectural choice onl'. A .NET de$elo%er is shielded from chan&es in the underl'in& o%eratin& s'stem and AP*, as the .NET technolo&ies deal with how 'our code is im%lemented6 and with the !ommon T'%e S'stem, 'ou don2t ha$e to worr' whether the com%onent 'ou are "uildin& uses a different im%lementationof a strin& or inte&er to the lan&ua&e it will "e used in.

2.2 WHY ASP.NET

ASP.NET i!n<t !im(ly the ne#t er!ion of ASPF it<! a com(letely rede!igned

technology that take! the be!t a!(ect! of ASP and merge! them with the (ower of (ure ob&ectBoriented (rogramming =11P> ; a (owerful de elo(ment framework ; to gi e it a a!t range of functionality and the ad antage! of a fully com(iled e#ecution en ironment . Becau!e the change! between ASP and ASP.NET are !o dra!tic ; current ASP de elo(er! mu!t DunlearnE many conce(t! that they became accu!tomed to in ASP in order to truly get the mo!t out of ASP.NET. 1ne of the mo!t dramatic change! in ASP.NET i! that it<! now a fully com(iled im(lemented thi! ery intelligently and it would be en ironment . /icro!oft ha! ery ea!y to di!mi!! ASP.NET

a! inter(reted becau!e; to the (rogrammer and the end u!er ; it a((ear! a! ,f ASP.NET work! in e#actly the !ame way a! ASP . 5ou modify your ASP.NET (age ; you refre!h the (age in the brow!er ; and the change! are reflected. No where are you re+uired to run a com(iler . Com(ilation actually occur! the fir!t time a (age i! re+ue!ted after it ha! been modified. Thi! com(iled co(y i! then ke(t until the (age

i! modified and re+ue!ted again . A! ,< e already mentioned ; thi! (roce!! i! totally tran!(arent to the u!er . There<! naturally a !ignificant (erformance ad antage of ASP.NET o er ASP . Now; in addition to the obligatory !calability ad antage of a com(iled a((lication . ,t<!al!o im(ortant to note that while ASP.NET !u((ort! the (re iou!ly mentioned Dcom(ile on demandE functionality ; it<! al!o (o!!ible to (recom(ile ASP.NET a((lication! into a .NET '-- ; which i! the method that Gi!ual Studio .NET u!e! by default when building Web a((lication! with it.

2.3 WEB SERVICES

When We 2!e The ,nternet The Two Thing! We 2!e /o!t -ikely 2!e; ,t $or are Sending =and *ecei ing> EB/ail and Suffering the Web . The!e two A((lication are ; by far the /o!t Po(ular 2!e! of the ,nternet . Building on the Succe!! of the WWW ; Web Ser ice! "a! the Potential to be D The Ne#t Big ThingE. The Web i! a 7reat Way to Share ,nformation . "owe er the Problem i! to be that Web i! only to be u!e by "uman . Wherea! Web Ser ice! are Built to be *ead and ,nter(reted by Com(uter Program! not by "uman!. Web Ser ice! are ; in effect ; Web Site! for Com(uter! to 2!e . The!e Web Site! tend! to be 'ynamic in Nature ; !o They 'on<t Contain Static 2nchanging Content ; But Can *eact and Ada(t to Choice! and Section!. Web Ser ice! are Ba!ed on Com(letely o(en Standard! that are not tied to Their Attraction i! that

any (articular Platform or any (articular Com(any. Part of any one will be able to Connect to and 2!e your Web Ser ice!. .Net

doe!n<t matter whether you de(loy your web !er ice! on Solari! ; 2ni# ; /ac ; or Window!B

,m(lementation of Web Ser ice! are entirely ba!ed around a lo e with for year! . The

(rogramming (aradigm that de elo(er! ha e been falling in

Princi(le behind a Web Ser ice! i! that you build a cla!! that ha! method! in it.

2.4 WEB CONTROLS

The ASP.NET We" controls are also known as We" form controls . Microsoft hasincluded a %lethora of We" controls in the System.Web.UI.WebControls names%ace. For discussion %ur%oses , we will di$ide these controls into three ma.or cate&ories7 Basic Web Controls : These We" controls are similar to HTM( ser$er controls "ut ha$e additional features . These controls ha$e a richer and more consistent o".ect model. Validation Controls : These controls ha$e "een de$elo%ed e,clusi$el' for in%ut $alidation . Databound ListControls: These "elon& to the new &eneration of controls that %ro$ide additional %ower and de$elo%ment s%eed .These are also t'%icall' referred to as Templated Web Controls . All We" controls are deri$ed from the &eneric class named WebControl. Thus, the We" controls nherit a common set of class mem"ers. Some of the fre)uentl' used mem"ers include BackColor ,
BorderColor , BorderStyle, BorderWidth , DataBind,Enabled , Font , ForeColor , Hei ht , !a e , !arent , Site , TabInde" , ToolTip , #isible, Init , $oad , Unload , Dispose , ToStrin , %nInit , %n $oad and , %nDataBindin .

ii

2.5 HOW WEB SERVER EXECUTE ASP.NET FILES

When a site $isitor re)uests a We" %a&e address , the "rowser contacts the We"ser$er s%ecified in the address 8-( and makes a re)uest for the %a&e "' formulatin&a HTTP re)uest , which is sent to the We" ser$er . The We" ser$er onrecei$in& the re)uest determines the file t'%e re)uested and %asses %rocessin& to the a%%ro%riate handler. ASP.NET files are com%iled , if necessar' , into .NET Pa&e classes and then e,ecuted , with the results sent to the client2s "rowser. !om%ilation means that on first load ASP.NET a%%lications take lon&er to dis%la' than %re$ious $ersions of ASP , "ut once com%iled the' are noticea"l' faster.

Client-Server Interaction ASP.NET a%%lications are a mi,ture of client side marku% and code , and ser$er side %rocessin& . When an ASP.NET We" form %a&e is downloaded to the $isitor2s We" "rowser , additional code is included to %re$ious ASP $ersions . This e,tra code ena"les richer form functionalit' , includin& ser$er and client side e$ents , $alidation , and the a"ilit' to maintain form $alue state . The ser$er determines the $isitor2s "rowser t'%e and sends marku% to match the "rowser2s a"ilities . Some client interactions will "e dealt with within the $isitor2s "rowser , while others will re)uire information to "e %osted to the ser$er for %rocessin& and the altered %a&e returned . As form res%onses are recei$ed , the form $alues are maintained in a new facilit' of ASP.NET 9State a&s: and are com%ressed into a hidden form elementcontainin& the %a&e 9;iewstate.: This allows the form elements that the $isitor has interacted with to maintain the same $alues as when the %a&e was su"mitted . As illustrated in Fi&ure the "rowser can re)uest information from and send information to the ser$er usin& two HTTP methods , GET and POST .

iii

WEB SE*GE* ASP.NET *E42EST *ESP1NS E $,-E S5STE/ A'1.NET 'ATA BASE $,-E S5STE/

i#

9 default.as% : or 9inde,.html .: 0ou can add information as %arameters , called a querystring. This is se%arated from the rest of the 8-( with a )uestion mark , and the %arameters take the form of ke'words and $alues such as 9ke'word<$alue, : . Multi%le %arameters are se%arated with am%ersands , so if we ha$e two %arameters , foo and bar , the' would "e Presented like foo=a & bar=z. So , a full =ET re)uest includin& )uer' strin& could "e http://www.abcx z!"#.co$/site/index.asp%pa&e=' . When a "rowser sends information usin& the POST method , the %arameters are com%iled in the same wa' "ut sent se%aratel' in the HTTP header , and so are not seen in the 8-( %ortion of the "rowser like GET re)uests are . Forms often use POST for this $er' reason . /ther information &oes into the HTTP re)uest header , such as what "rowser the user is usin& and so on . As 'ou will see later , 'our ASP can %ick u% this header information and the )uer'strin& %arameter $alues . Server-Side Processing When the ser$er recei$es this re)uest , it will find the %a&e that was re)uested usin& the %ath information s%ecified , and the rele$ant s'stem will %rocess the %a&e . *n the case of !lassic ASP , there was not much to this %rocess , althou&h a certain amount of cachin& ha%%ened . As 'ou will see in Fi&ure with ASP.NET the %rocess is a fair amount more in$ol$ed "ut %ro$ides for much faster %rocessin& and deli$er'.

Ser e $ind! *e+ue! t Com(ilatio n Sa e $ile! Com(ile 5e!

ASP. NET (roce!!

Changed H No

Error

*e!(on!e

E#ecute

#i

.. P !n o" So"t#!$e %e&e o'(ent

The (ro&ect of D1n -ine Trading Sy!temE ha! been de elo(ed in following !tage!I

An! )s*s %es*+n Co,*n+ An! )s*s,n the analy!i! (ha!e; information about the current technology in the field of web

a((lication and on .net ha! been collected and !tudied from the concerned web!ite! and book!. We ha e al!o gone through the already a ailable !oftware in the concerned field; to ha e a look J feel of their mode of o(eration. Al!o +ue!tioned were a!ked from general (ublic for their re+uirement! and iew for the concerned !oftware.

%es*+n I ,n the de!ign (ha!e '$'<! and flow chart! of the !oftware are de
already a ailable !oftware in the concerned field.

elo(ed; and the

!oftware ha! been modulariKed. To de elo( the interface referenced ha! been taken from the

Co,*n+

I The coding (art of the !oftware i! done in .net framework; and the interface! are

de elo(ed u!ing ASP.net%.@ .

#ii

5. %et!* o" P$o.e/t %e&e o'e,

The 1nB-ine Trading Pro&ect contain information about the u!er who logined to thi! and ha e an account can buy book! on line. There i! a facility to acce!! (roduct! like com(uter ; wa!hing machine ;TG of different com(anie!. All the information about the (roduct J u!er i! to be !tored in a databa!e .Each (roduct ha e an (roduct id by which a (articular (roduct! i! to be defined. ,n thi! (ro&ect there i! al!o a facility for the u!er to com(lain to the com(any web!ite about a (roduct if a (roduct ha e any (roblem . The other facility (ro ided in thi! (ro&ect i! to feedback form which (ro ide! the control! for the u!er to gi e the information about the (ro&ect to their (articular com(any.

1. 0*n*(1( S)ste( Re21*$e(ent

#iii

So"t#!$e Re21*$e(ent

P$o/esso$ O'e$!t*n+ S)ste( .NET F$!(e#o$3

Pentium1 L A/' Athlon A-- Window! !erie! 1.S. Gi!ual Studio %@@) or higher

H!$,#!$e Re21*$e(ent

0e(o$) %*s3 %$*&es

%03 /B *A/ "ard di!k with at lea!t %7B of free !(ace 1... /B flo((y di!k dri e C'BWriter

#i

.W4!t *s .NET 5
The .NET framework created by /icro!oft i! a !oftware de elo(ment (latform focu!ed on ra(id a((lication de elo(ment; (latform inde(endence and network tran!(arency. .NET i! /icro!oftM! !trategic initiati e for !er er and de!kto( de elo(ment for the ne#t decade. According to /icro!oft; .NET include! many technologie! that are de!igned to facilitate ra(id de elo(ment of ,nternet and intranet a((lication!. .NET i! not meant to be u!ed e#clu!i ely for ,nternet de elo(ment; it! inno ation! were dri en by the limitation! of current ,nternet de elo(ment tool! and technology. The ba!i! of thi! new de elo(ment (latform con!i!t! of three (rimary com(onent! or layer!I the common language runtime; the .NET $ramework ba!e cla!!e!; and the u!er and (rogram interface!; a! demon!trated in $igure

.NET

al!o include! !ome more re olutionary com(onent! N in the form of

the .NET $ramework.

!. T4e .NET F$!(e#o$3 *n/ 1,es#

Common -anguage *untime .NET Sy!tem Cla!! library ASPO =Web$orm!> A'1O CA =(ronounced C sharp>

b. Common Language Runtime(CLR):

The C-* li e! at the heart of the .NET $ramework. The C-* (ro ide! an en ironment in which our (rogram! can run. Thi! include! conce(t! !uch a! com(ilation; regi!tration; and e en de(loyment i!!ue!. A! the name im(lie!; the C-* i! de!igned to !u((ort many (rogramming language! in a common manner. Thi! i! e#citing becau!e it mean! that de elo(er! donMt ha e to learn a new language !ynta# to (rogram in the .NET en ironment. /icro!oft will be relea!ing !ome core language! with Gi!ual Studio.NET; includingI

# i

GB CA COO ?SC*,PT

1ther endor! will undoubtedly de elo( com(iler! for other language!; including C1B1- and (erha(! e en ?a a. The common language runtime u!e! .1st6*n6t*(e com(iler! to com(ile the ,code to nati e binary code before e#ecution. 1ther !ignificant feature! of the common language runtime include the followingI 1 Ger!ion control 2 Memory management 3 Cro!!Blanguage integration 4 Common datatype system

i. Compilation:
An im(ortant (art of the C-* i! it! com(ilation (roce!!. Thi! (roce!! (ro ide! a great deal of fle#ibility and i! at the root of many of .NETM! ca(abilitie! o erall. All code in .NET i! nati ely com(iled; but that com(ilation ty(ically occur! &u!t in time to run the code rather than way back before de(loyment a! i! ty(ical today. To under!tand the com(ilation (roce!! we need to realiKe that .NET introduce! not one new language; but two. CA ha! recei ed a lot of attention from the (re!! and de elo(er!; but .NET al!o introduce! /S,- B the /icro!oft ,ntermediate -anguage. All language! that work with .NET ha e com(iler! that generate /S,- rather than machine code. /S,- code =and !ome metadata weMll di!cu!! later> can be de(loyed a! needed; and will be com(iled into machine code on the u!erM! com(uter; a! i! illu!trated by the following diagramI

# ii

Co,e Co('* !t*on !n, E7e/1t*on

So1$/e Co,e

Compilation
L!n+1!+e Co('* e$

Co,e 0SIL 0et!,!t!

Also called Assembly (.EXE or .DLL file) - First time eac met od is called

N!t*&e Co,e

Execution

8IT

Install

time

Co('* e$

precompilation

ii. Metadata:
A! illu!trated by the diagram; not only doe! each language com(iler generate ,-; it al!o generate! metadata. Thi! metadata i! key to .NET a! it (ro ide! an e#act de!cri(tion of the com(onent! that were com(iled to ,-. ,n the world of C1/; com(onent! were de!cribed by /,'- B the /icro!oft ,nterface 'efinition -anguage. /,'- wa! unable to com(letely and accurately de!cribe com(onent!; which could be a limiting factor in a((lication de!ign; and mo!t definitely cau!ed (roblem! when GB code tried to call a COO com(onent or i!a er!a. The metadata !cheme u!ed by .NET i! far more robu!t. The data i! ke(t in C/- !o it i! ea!ily acce!!ible and under!tandable. /ore im(ortantly; the metadata for the com(onent com(letely and accurately de!cribe! the com(onentM! interface!. The re!ult i! that com(onent! can be created in and called by any language B a oiding nearly all a!!ociated (roblem! with C1/. ,n fact; becau!e the ,- and metadata are fully acce!!ible to the .NET runtime we gain a number of key cro!!Blanguage benefit!; includingI

# iii

1 2 3 4

Seamle!! cro!!Blanguage method call! Cro!!Blanguage inheritance Code can be checked to !ee if it i! Pun!afeP before being run .NET can automatically !erialiKe ob&ect!

Additionally; metadata eliminate! any reliance on the Window! regi!try B !omething looked at more dee(ly when de(loyment i! !ub!e+uently di!cu!!ed.

iii. Managed vs. Unmanaged Code:

A common term that come! u( when di!cu!!ing .NET and the C-* i! the conce(t of (!n!+e, /o,e. Thi! i! a (retty !traightforward conce(t. Any code that run! within the conte#t of the C-* i! managed code. Any code that run! within the nati e en ironment of the underlying o(erating !y!tem =within the Win)% en ironment for in!tance> i! unmanaged code. /anaged code i! &u!t code that i! running; and thu! i! being managed by; the .NET Common -anguage *untime.

*&. Uns!"e Co,eWhen di!cu!!ing .NET; the conce(t of P!afeP !. Pun!afeP code will ari!e. The term Pun!afeP can be confu!ing; becau!e un!afe code i!nMt necessarily un!afe N it &u!t could be un!afe. 2n!afe code i! code that work! with (ointer! B meaning that it could directly alter the call !tack; or take other !te(! that might circum ent (redictable beha ior. That doe!nMt mean our code actually doe! any of the!e thing!; &u!t that it could. E!!entially; un!afe code i! code that the C-* canMt en!ure will alway! run (ro(erly or !afely. Becau!e the C-* com(ile! the ,- code right before it i! actually run; it can ea!ily check through the ,- a! it i! being com(iled to determine if it i! !afe. Security !etting! on a machine can (rohibit the running of un!afe code; hel(ing to (re ent maliciou! code from running within the .NET en ironment.

#i#

c. Deployment:
1ne of the bigge!t i!!ue! Window! de elo(er! ha e been gra((ling with for year! i! D%LL 4e 9. Thi! (roblem ha! many face!; including =but certainly not limited to>I 1 2 3 4 5 ,ncom(atible '--! on a client !y!tem ,n!talling a (rogram can break e#i!ting (rogram! ,nability to run a com(onent that i!nMt regi!tered *e+uirement to regi!ter a com(onent when it i! u(dated ,nfle#ibility in com(onent interface!

.NET addre!!e! '-- hell and the general com(le#ity of de(loying C1/ a((lication! by entirely changing the way com(onent! interact with each other. A((lication! in .NET are com(o!ed of one or more !sse(: *es. An a!!embly contain! ,- and it! a!!ociated metadata B thu! containing both code and a com(lete de!cri(tor of that code all in one con enient (ackage. Since an a!!embly i! totally !elfBde!cribing = ia it! metadata>; thereM! no need to regi!ter anything within the regi!try. Becau!e of thi! fact; de(loyment i! no more com(licated than co(ying the a!!embly to a directory and running it. ,f code in an a!!embly re+uire! code from another a!!embly; they acce!! each other ia a directory (ath. We might build a com(le# a((lication with ariou! a!!emblie! in a !et of !ubdirectorie! under our main a((licationM! directory.

,. ;!$:!+e /o e/t*onThe .NET $ramework i! a garbageBcollected en ironment. 7arbage collection i! the (roce!! of detecting when ob&ect! are no longer in u!e and automatically de!troying tho!e ob&ect!; thu! freeing memory. ,f the de elo(er forget! to free ob&ect! from the a((lication; memory allocation of the a((lication grow!; !ometime! !ub!tantially. Al!o; freeing ob&ect! too early cau!e!

##

a((lication bug! to cro( u(Q the!e kind! of error! are; in mo!t ca!e!; +uite difficult to track down. ,n .NET; thi! new garbage collector work! !o that we a! a de elo(er are no longer re+uired to monitor our code for unneeded ob&ect! and de!troy them. The garbage collector will take care of all thi! for u!. 7arbage collection doe! not ha((en immediately; but in!tead the garbage collector will occa!ionally make a !wee( of the hea( to determine which ob&ect! !hould be allocated for de!truction. Thi! new !y!tem com(letely ab!ol e! the de elo(er from hunting down memory u!age and deciding when to free memory.

e. N!(es'!/esThe .NET $ramework i! made u( of hundred! of cla!!e!. /any of the a((lication! that we build in .NET are going to take ad antage of the!e cla!!e! in one way or another. Becau!e the number of cla!!e! i! !o large and we will need to get at them in a logical fa!hion; the .NET $ramework organiKe! the!e cla!!e! into a cla!! !tructure called a namespace. There are a number of name!(ace!; and they are organiKed in an under!tandable and !traightforward way.

2. NET S)ste( C !ss L*:$!$)The C-* i! an im(ortant (art of .NET. "owe er; merely ha ing the ability to run code on many different hardware or o(erating !y!tem! i! &u!t a (art of the o erall (uKKle. To be u!eful; a((lication! need to interact with their en ironment B it! file!; data; (roce!!e!; font!; gra(hical com(onent!; etc. Without a con!i!tent way to interact with the en ironment acro!! ariou! o(erating !y!tem!; thereM! no way to create a com(le# bu!ine!! a((lication. The C-* en!ure! that our code will com(ile in many (lace! B but it i! the .NET !y!tem cla!! library that (ro ide! our code with a con!i!tent way to interact with the en ironment.

##i

The !y!tem cla!! library i! +uite com(rehen!i e. ,t ha! to be. We are u!ed to (rogramming within the Win)% en ironment B which i! a (retty com(rehen!i e PruntimeM. To be !ucce!!ful;.NET ha! to (ro ide a runtime with com(arable feature! and functionality; e!!entially (ro iding o(erating !y!tem ca(abilitie! while being o(erating !y!tem neutral.

The C-* and !y!tem cla!! library com(o!e the en ironment in which all .NET a((lication! will run. A com(rehen!i e under!tanding of the !y!tem cla!! library and it! feature! i! critical for !ucce!! regardle!! of the !(ecific (rogramming language being u!ed by the de elo(er.

3. Win Fo ms:
A! ha! (robably become a((arent; .NET i! not merely a whole new way to do web (rogramming B it i! a whole new way of doing Window! (rogramming a! well. "i!torically; each Window! (rogramming language ha! had it! own way of handling the u!er interface. GB (ro ide! it! ty(e of form!; COO it! dialog!; GBA deli er! a different form de!igner; and !o on.A! with ASPO and Web $orm!; .NET (ro ide! a !ingle; unified way to create u!er interface! out!ide of a brow!er en ironment B W*n Fo$(s.

##ii

Win $orm! (ro ide a languageBneutral way to create form!; add control!; and re!(ond to the u!erM! action!. $or GB (rogrammer! thereM! not a lot of difference B the model continue! to work the !ame. 'rag and dro( to build the form; doubleBclick to o(en the code window; and write code to re!(ond to the e ent!. Behind the !cene! thing! are different; howe er. Win $orm! are not ba!ed on Acti eC; !o the control! weMre working with are not Acti eC control!. *ather; they are in!tance! of cla!!e! in the .NET !y!tem cla!! library. A! with Acti eC; we can create our own control! B though now thi! i! done by !ub cla!!ing e#i!ting cla!!e!; u!ing inheritance. Though the ca(abilitie! of Window! form! ha e changed little; the underlying technologie! ha e been re(laced with more (owerful and integrated com(onent! and cla!!e! that fit !moothly into .NET.

##iii

4. ASP.NET EXECUTION 0O%ELa. Compilation o! "#$ .%et $ages:

,t i! a well known fact that ASP .Net (age! functional logic can be written in two way!. The ASP .Net code can either be written in!ide the ASPC (age or it can be included a! a a!(RnetRcode.c! or b .net file. When the ASPC (age i! embedded with the code of either CA or GB .Net; the ASP .Net run time automatically com(ile! the code into an a!!embly and load! it. ,f the code i! ke(t in a !e(arate !ource file either a! a GB or CA file; it ha! to be com(iled by the (rogrammer; which will be u!ed by the run time for further e#ecution.

b. W iting "#$ .%et "pps &it' Code be'ind !iles:

The com(ilation of the!e Code Behind file! i! u!ually done manually either u!ing the c!c.e#e command line com(iler or by u!ing the Build feature in /icro!oft Gi!ual Studio .Net; which (roduce! an out(ut a! a library with an e#ten!ion of .'--. Now the &ob of a!(netRw(.e#e i! ery !im(le. ,t can directly e#ecute the com(iled code and return the "T/- (age to the web !er er.

c. ()ecution Flo& o! "#$* $ages by ++#:

The e#ecution of ASP .Net (age! are not !ingly handled by the ,nternet ,nformation Ser er or in !hort hand form ,,S. ,t i! taken care by the worker (roce!! a!(netRw(.e#e. Whene er the ,,S recei e! a re+ue!t from a web brow!er or a client re+ue!ting for a (age; it delegate! the &ob to the a!(netRw(.e#e (roce!!; which take! care of the !ub!e+uent &ob! and finally return! the "T/- (age back to the ,,S.

When ASP .Net i! in!talled; in!tallation (roce!! create! an a!!ociation for .a!(# file! with the a!(netRi!a(i.dll file!. When the ,,S recei e! a re+ue!t from the client! or web brow!er! for an

##i

a!(# (age; the ,,S web !er er hand! thi! re+ue!t o er to the a!(netRi!a(i.dll; which in turn in!tantiate! the a!(netRw(.e#e &ob. Thi! a!(netRw(.e#e finaliKe! any unfini!hed &ob! like run time com(ilation etc.; a! e#(lained abo e and then e#ecute! the a!( .net a((lication in a new a((lication domain. $inally the out(ut (age i! generated and returned back to the web !er er; which inBturn !end! the file o er to the client.

ASP.NET EXECUTION 0O%EL

INTRO%UCTION TO PETSPOINT.CO0 WEBSITE

##

World today i! getting !maller and !maller. World ha! become a !ingle; big market where you can !how your ware!. ,nternet i! a medium which ha! made it (o!!ible for any (er!on any where in the world to market hi! (roduct! in any (lace in the world. "e doe! not ha e to !(end a lot of money. "e can do all the!e thing! without mo ing out of hi! office. ,t! one of the chea(e!t way of marketing. Not only thi!; he can !how all hi! (roduct! without e en (hy!ically going there with hi! (roduct!. Web!ite on the net i! a ery u!eful tool for e#(anding your bu!ine!!. ,t (ro ide! you with a medium for interacting with your client!. There i! no middleman or com(anie! between the final u!er of (roduct and (roducer. ,t !a e! co!t on both !ide!. 2!er get! (roduct! on a chea(er rate a! he get! it directly from the (roducer. Producer get! a worldwide market without (aying much and !a e! a lot of marketing e#(en!e!.

The (ro&ect we are making i! for com(uter "ardware Com(any. They deal in a wide ariety of "LW com(onent!. Ty(e! of com(uter hardware monitor; keyboard; mou!e; !tandard Package! etc. there i! a o(tion of (ayment by credit card. 2!er ha! to choo!e the (roduct! he want! to buy and add it to the !ho((ing card he can (urcha!e the !ame. $or (urcha!ing he ha! to enter the credit card no. or demand draft no. and (roduct deli ery in 1@ day!

SOFTWARE RE<UIRE0ENT ANALYSIS

## i

#o!t&a e Re,ui ement

Software re+uirement! deal with the re+uirement! of the (ro(o!ed !y!tem; i.e.; the ca(abilitie! that the (ro(o!ed !y!tem !hould ha e. The re+uirement! (ha!e end! with SSw re+uirement! S(ecification =S*S> The S*S i! a document that com(letely de!cribe! TWhat< the (ro(o!ed !oftware !hould do without de!cribing T"ow< the !oftware will do it. The ba!ic goal of the re+uirement! (ha!e i! to (roduce the S*S; which de!cribe! the com(lete e#ternal beha ior of the (ro(o!ed !oftware. The ba!ic limitation for (roducing the S*S i! that the u!er need! kee( changing a! the en ironment in which the !y!tem wa! to function! change! with time. Thi! lead! to a re+ue!t for re+uirement change! e en after the S*S i! (roduced.

Nee, Fo$ SRS

Software !y!tem! are in the need to automate an e#i!ting manual !y!tem or de!ire! for a new !oftware !y!tem. There are three ma&or (artie! intere!ted in a new !y!temI the client; the u!er! and the de elo(er but the (roblem i! that the client! u!ually do not under!tand the !oftware and the de elo(er often do not under!tand the client<! (roblem. Thi! cau!e! a communication ga( between the!e (artie!. Thi! ga( i! bridged by the S*S. 1. Ba!i! of Agreement between Client and 'e elo(er. %. *eference for alidation of the final (roduct. ). A high +uality S*S i! nece!!ary for high +uality !oftware.

Re,ui ement "nalysis

1. Payment through credit card, DD. 2. Easy navigation. 3. Provide good G !.

## ii

4. Provide "atest design techni#ue. 5. Easy to hand"e and Easy to understand. $. Provide c"ient% server uti"ities.

ANALYSIS
Ho# to %e&e o' So"t#!$e

## iii

A((lication of !y!tematic; di!ci(lined; +uantifiable a((roach to de elo(ment; o(eration; and maintenance of !oftware. ,t i! a layered technology. ,t re!t! on organiKational commitment to +uality

T4e In/$e(ent! 0o,e

The ,ncremental model combine! element! of the linear !e+uential model =a((lied re(etiti ely> Sy!temLinformation with the iterati engineering. e (hilo!o(hy of (rototy(ing. The incremental model a((lie! linear !e+uence in a !taggered fa!hion a! calendar time (rogre!!e!. Each linear !e+uence (roduce! a deli erable Analy!i! 'e!ign Code Te!t DincrementE of the !oftware. $or e#am(le; wordB(roce!!ing !oftware de elo(ed u!ing the incremental (aradigm might deli er ba!ic file management; editing; and document (roduction function in the fir!t incrementQ more !o(hi!ticated editing and document (roduction ca(abilitie! In/$e(ent!incrementQ 1 in the (aradigm.!econd !(elling and grammar checking in third incrementQ and ad antage (age layout ca(abilitie! in the fourth increment. ,t !hould be noted that the (roce!! flow for any increment can incor(orate the (rototy(ing When an incremental model i! u!ed; the fir!t increment i! often a core (roduct. That i!; ba!ic Te!t Analy!i! 'e!ign Code re+uirement! are addre!!ed; but many !u((lementary feature! =!ome known; other! unknown> remain undeli ered. The core (roduct i! u!ed by u!ed by the cu!tomer =or undergoe! detailed In/$e(ent! 2 re iew>.A! a re!ult of u!e andLor e aluation; a (lan i! de elo(ed for the ne#t increment. The (lan addre!!e! the modification of the core (roduct to better meet the need! of the cu!tomer and deli ery of additional feature! and functionality. Thi! (roce!! i! re(eated following the deli ery of each increment; until the com(lete (roduct i! (roduced.

%ATA FLOW %IA;RA0 =%F%>

Analy!i!

'e!ign

Code

Te!t

In/$e(ent! 3 A 'ata $low 'iagram i! gra(hical re(re!entation that de(ict! the information flow and the tran!form! that are a((lied a! data mo e! from in(ut to out(utQ it can be u!ed to re(re!ent !oftware at any le el of ab!traction. ,n fact; '$'<! may be (ortioned into le el! that re(re!ent increa!ing information flow and functional detail. Therefore; it (ro ide! mechanic! for functional modeling a! well a! information flow modeling. Analy!i! ##i# In/$e(ent! 4 'e!ign Code Te!t

'$'<! are defined in le el! with e ery le el decrea!ing the le el of ab!traction; a! well a! defining greater detail! of the functional organ! of the !y!tem. A D@E le el; '$'; al!o known a! Conte#t or $undamental Sy!tem /odel; re(re!ent! the entire !oftware element! a! a !ingle bubble; with in(ut and out(ut data entitie! which are indicated a! incoming and outgoing arrow!.

S5/B1-S 1$ '$' 1. B1:: eI A circle i! u!ed to de(ict a (roce!!. Both in(ut! and out(ut! to a Proce!! i! data flow!. %. A$$o#I ). Re/t!n+ eI 'ata flow! are re(re!ented by a line with an arrow. *ectangle! are u!ed to re(re!ent the entitie! and are out!ide the Sy!tem. .. P!$! e L*nesI Parallel line! are u!ed to de(ict data !tore!. Proce!! may !tore or *ecei e data from data !tore!. ;ene$! %F%

###

%F% Fo$ We:s*te

###i

%F% Fo$ Lo+*n S)ste(

###ii

%F% Fo$ P!)(ent

###iii

###i

TESTIN;
The Proce!! of analyKing a !Lw item to detect the difference! between e#i!ting and re+uired condition! =i.e. Bug!> and to e aluate the feature! of the !Lw item! i! called the Te!ting.The (roce!! of analyKing a (rogram with the intent of finding error! i! called the te!ting. 'uring te!ting; the (rogram to be te!ted i! e#ecuted with a !et of te!t ca!e!; and the out(ut of the (rogram for the te!t ca!e! i! e aluated to determine if the (rogram i! (erforming a! e#(ected. $rom thi! it i! clear that te!ting i! u!ed to find out error! rather than to tell the e#act nature of error. Al!o; the !ucce!! of the te!ting (roce!! clearly de(end! u(on the te!t ca!e! u!ed. Te!ting i! a com(le# (roce!!. ,n order to make the (roce!! !im(ler; the te!ting acti itie! are broken into !maller acti itie!. 'ue to thi!; for a (ro&ect; incremental te!ting i! generally (erformed. ,n incremental te!ting (roce!!; the !y!tem i! broken into !et of !ub!y!tem! and the!e !ub!y!tem! are te!ted !e(arately before integrating them to form the !y!tem for !y!tem te!ting.

TEST CASES
Te!t ca!e! are re+uired to find out the (re!ence of error! in a !y!tem. Te!t ca!e! are the in(ut! of the te!ting (roce!!. While !electing the te!t ca!e! the (rimary ob&ect i! to en!ure that if there i! an error or fault in the (rogram. An ideal te!t ca!e !et i! one that !ucceed! only if there are no error! in (rogram. 1ne (o!!ible ideal !et of te!t ca!e! i! one that include! all the (o!!ible in(ut! to the (rogram. Thi! i! often called e#hau!ti e te!ting. ,n thi! (ro&ect we had run different ty(e! of web (age! !e(arately J check there out(ut J al!o we make !ome te!t ca!e! for the (age!.

1. Entering a &rong user id and pass&ord into the "ogin re#uest 'esu"t ( )ai"ure occur to "ogin 2. *u+mitting the )orm &ithout )u")i""ing the necessary condition into the "ogin )orm.

###

'esu"t% )ai"ure occur to "ogin 3. Entering a right user id and pass&ord into the "ogin re#uest 'esu"t ( *uccess)u" "ogin 4. *u+mitting the )orm a)ter )u")i""ing the necessary condition into the "ogin )orm. 'esu"t% *uccess)u" "ogin *e"ect di))erent items , their di))erent%2 #uantities , chec- the amount o) +i"" &ith respect to e.pected resu"t. 'esu"t% Pass 5. *e"ect di))erent items , their di))erent%2 #uantities , a)ter purchasing them chec- the data+ase )or re"evant changes.. 'esu"t% Pass
There i! ariou! method of (erforming te!tingQ here we ha e u!ed the Black Bo# J White Bo# Te!ting.

BLAC? BOX TESTIN;

,n thi! ty(e of te!ting there i! no need to know the code! work. A (er!on without the knowledge of internal !chema could (erform thi! te!t. ,n the te!ting a((roach te!t data i! deri ed from the !(ecification of the (rogram and i! carefully !elected to te!t e ery (o!!ible combination of the in(ut! E ery (o!!ible combination of in(ut i! in!erted to check whether the code i! gi ing the e#(ected re!ult of not.

WHITE BOX TESTIN;

Su((o!e the (rogram code i! to be !ubmitted to a (rofe!!ional.

### i

And the (re!entation might di!clo!e !ome bug!; which are otherwi!e hard to find; re!ulting in a !trong (!ychological influence on the (rogrammer. 'uring !uch a (re!entation the internal !tructure of the (rogram i! di!clo!ed with the main goal to detect fault!. The te!t data i! !elected to te!t e ery bit of code. Thi! re+uire! a detailed knowledge of the code to be te!ted. Since the em(ha!i! of the te!t i! the indi idual code!; the te!t data may be illogical when com(ared with the (rogram !(ecification!.

### ii

WEB SITE PA;ES

### iii

###i#

#l

#li

#lii

#liii