I have seen questions similar to mine, but there are some unusual specifics to mine not covered. I have a SQL SERVER driven ASP.NET web app (website). I am using the older webforms model, not MVC. I understand that MVC is usually a better overall model from what I know of it so far, but I'm not sure in my situation so I would like some opinions from people that know both MVC and webforms.
The site only has two database driven pages that logged in users can view for the entire site. Call them "viewer pages". The two pages are not even linked on purpose, so there is no navigation on this site.
The rest of the pages are what I would call "worker pages", and they are aspx pages with cs code behind. Each one is designed to handle a specific task it will get from ajax calls from one of the two viewer pages. They are the pages that get the database information to complete the ajax request with the needed data. They "could" be xml or json files or at least output those formats, but I chose the AHAH method because I know the exact html that the requesting page needs. So ajax requests come back as html snippets (divs) with no wrapping body or html tags, not xml or json. Therefore client side parsing is not required except some occasional jquery. I have about 30 of these.
I know MVC has some really big advantages for any normal site, but in my case, should I even bother? I don't see where it would give me an advantage except for the url structure feature that has no file extension, which I love about it. But if one looks at the site as a two page website, with no navigation or even links, and 30 pages that spit out xml, I can't see what MVC would do for me.
Thank for your opinions and advice. I would be happy to edit the question if I wasn't clear enough.
<div>
s aren't data. They're sub-views. I recommend building a simple MVC app so you can get an idea of the separation of concerns that I'm talking about. Then you'll be in a better place to decide if you'd get benefit from a new architecture.