My searching skills seem to be failing me on this one. It is a simple question;
In ASP.NET is it possible to store class files in a folder not under app_code?
What I am trying to accomplish is create class files which when added (or modified) to the web site will not cause the web site to restart. Anything under App_code or in the bin folder causes a restart. We are not using .NET for the presentation layer.
My reason is simple, we make changes somewhat regularly, and I do not want to wait until a specific time to add/change a feature. These are 24 hour websites and there is no great time to restart them.
Edit:
I am using FluorineFX to access the middle tier. I created a folder called "ProdCode" from the root of the application. When I try to access the NameSpace ProdeCode, class Employee_Calendar method getEvents. I get the error "Failed to locate the requested type ProdCode.Employee_Calendar"
Well, the goal of a non-restart is huge different, and HUGE separate from that of being able to place code modules, or class modules in some other folder.
When you build the project, most of the modules (and class ones) are crunched down to a single .dll anyway.
So, while you are free to add new folders and inside of those folders add new code/class modules? That may not well eliminate the need for the site to re-load, or in fact the site to re-compile the code again.
All of the app_code, and any other code module will crank out and result in a single .dll file. So, I don't see how you going to gain, or win anything new here.
What you could perhaps do is build some classes outside of the project, compile them, and then set a reference to the external code (and class) modules in the other project. That would suggest a external .dll. This would work during debugging, but an "il-merge" usealy occurs when publishing as non debug, and thus the gazillion .dll's are merged into one.
So, separate out code - great idea.
Adding code to additional folders - sure - no problem (do right click on the given class, or code module and make SURE the build action is compile - this is a default for app code - for other folders I can't remember. You need to check this.
so, up to this point? Hey, all great.
But, to save site re-compile time? No, this where train is flying off a big broken bridge, and the whole she-bang is crashing up in a HUGE ball of flames.
You might be able to same some time during debugging, but those included module are pulled into the "main" .dll (same name as your applcation). Go check the "bin" folder now - you not see the app_code .dll's but only one main .dll with the name of your project.
Such re-compile time is useally rather fast for the site to re-load. I you are just changing markup, then fine. But the idea that you want to include compiled code, and attempting to avoid a re-load? No I would not consider this - even if you could! I mean, how many times have you seen code fail or NOT take even after a publish and FORGETTING to re-start the web server? Those .dll's are often loaded into memory, locked and 100+ more issues exist. I many a time lost half a day because my .dll's did not take (due to me not re-starting the web server). there is pain and then there is this kind of "pain" in which parts of your application don't load. I just can't imagine the risk vs rewards in trying to save some time??? - I must be missing something here?
Related
How to add a reference to the App_code directory for a sub-folder in web project
I have been given a task to take an older, grown piecemeal over a decade internal website and bring it "up to speed". I have run into a problem in ASP files to "see" the app_code directory. Essentially the current site is a collection of folders that work(ish) that I am trying to collect together as a single project with the LEAST number of edits.
When functionality was superseded the old code was moved into a "deprecated" folder. The code files now reference object in the app_code directory which is not visible to the file from it's new location. The easy answer would be to copy a version of the class file into the "deprecated" folder but that seems more like a hack then a solution. The same for copying the App_code folder to a location visible to the ASP file.
My thought was to add a reference ("reference path") somehow to the deprecated folder pointing to the app_code folder but I cannot find how to do that.
A couple of other notes: 1) the site was built by using text editors and "freebie" editors - it has never been compiled or run in-total through VS before. 2) once I get it built and checked into TFS I am going to remove the deprecated folders. 3) I am working under some stipulations to satisfy concerns arising from actions of prior developers.
Code like:
tr.Controls.Add(GUI.GetTableCell("Salesman", 0, "Center"));
Works well when the ASP page is at the same directory level as the App_code folder ("GUI" is a class with a "GetTableCell" function).
If I can add a folder reference I can solve all of the remaining problems I have with this step in the project.
EDIT
Let me re-ask it this way. The image below is a composite of what I am facing in VS2017. I have such a feeling that a light bulb is simply not turning on for some reason. How I have done this so far is pulling down the current website from our internal Win2003 web server and am trying to convert it into a legit web project. I have done many of the steps necessary but there are 47 instances of the problem visible in the composite image from Visual studio
The code behind from SubscriptionEditor.aspx pictured lower right. Has reference to a namespace which is in the code files in the App_code folder (neatly hidden). This site functions fine but I am missing something to make it work from within VS. I am just at a loss.
For anyone that finds this I want to point out that there are a number of excellent answers available for similar questions here and i have looked at dozens and tried them all. The simple answer to my problem is "you can't".
How to convert ASP.NET website to ASP.NET web application came close
The problem being the source is just a collection of ASP files - it follows no project or template.
Namespaces are super important in development and the clever ways that prior developers found to breach that discipline can not be fixed through VS. It is simple a lot of bloody knuckle corrections of code and scope issues til the errors disappear.
The limitations put on me prohibit any solution. I will end up advocating not "saving the code" unless they are willing to put in the investment to heal the most egregious foibles. So if you see me in the "available for contract" sites then you know how that conversation went.
I have faced a lot of issues with Publishing like when you need to make small changes on the code, sometimes the generated DLL file (the dll file for example of default.aspx.CS when published) cannot be recognized by IIS saying the codebehind is wrong or something. Sorry for not remembering the exact error message. I am hoping you know what I mean at this point.
Therefore, I usually do a simple Copy Paste operation instead of Publishing.
Could you tell me what am I missing by NOT using the Publish method? How is Publishing better? Or which one do you prefer, why?
Basically its a pros and cons situation.
Thankyou
Well, it depends on what you mean by "copy":
With Publishing you have options to pre-compile all or part of your application. You can publish to a local folder in your file system (instead of your target/host) and then copy the updated file(s) (only). If you are making "code behind" (c#/vb code) changes, this means you'll likely only need to "copy"/overwrite dlls. Goes without saying that if you've made "content" changes (html/razor/script/etc) changes, then you'd need to copy/overwrite those as well.
If you're new to deployment, you may find yourself simply copying/overwriting "everything" which is the safest way to go. Once you get more experience, you'll "recognize" which assets you only need to update (one or a few dlls and or content code, instead of "everything"). There's no magic to this, usually, its a matter of just looking at the timestamp of the dll/file after you've published (locally) or rebuild your web application.
I'd recommend doing a local publish so you can see what is actually needed on your server. The files published to your local file system/folder is what needs to be on your host/server. Doing so will visualize and remove whatever "mystery" there is to Publishing:
you'll see what is actually needed (on your server) vs. what's not
you'll see the file timesstamps which will help you recognize what files were actually changed vs those that weren't (and therefore don't need to be updated).
once you get the hang of it, you will not need to "copy"/ftp "everything" and just update files that were actually modified (only).
So "copy" can mean the above, or if you are saying you will simply copy all of your development code (raw (vb/cs)html/cs/vb) to your host, then that means your site will be dynamically compiled as each resource is needed/requested (nothing is pre-compiled). Also "easy" but you do lose pre-compilation which means there is a delay when each of your web pages are requested/needed (ASP.net needs to dynamically compile). Additionally, you are also exposing your source code on the server. It may not mean much depending on your situation, but it is one more thing to consider.
Here's more info on pre-compilation and options.
Assuming we consider an aspx page and its aspx.cs code behind file, there are three alternative ways of deploying your site:
You can copy both to iis. The aspx will be compiled to .cs upon the first request and then both .cses will be compiled to a temp .dll
You can "publish" to iis, this will compile the code behind class to .dll but will copy the aspx untouched. The aspx will be translated to .cs and then to .dll upon the first request
You can "publish" the site and then manually precompile it with the aspnet_compiler. Publishing will compile the code behind to .dll as previously but then precompilation will clear out your .aspx files by removing their content and moving the compiled code to yet another .dll.
All three models have their pros and cons.
First one is the easiest to update incrementally but in the same time is the most open to unwanted modifications.
Second is also easy, can be invoked from vs, it closes the possibility of some unwanted modifications at the server but .aspxses still need time to compile upon the first request
Third takes the time and some manual actions but prevents any changes and also speeds up the warm up of the site as the compilation of assets is not necessary. It is great for shared environments.
So I'm left maintaining a proprietary codebase from a third-party vendor. The vendor is still sort of around, but support is limp. The site is ASP.NET.
I have made some changes but I am having a really hard time getting IIS to compile these changes in. The bin/ directory has what I believe is a precompiled dll for the core classes. I've changed these but it doesn't recompile. I have tried deleting the dll but then the app refuses to build saying that the Global.asax can't inherit the type anymore, so I don't really know how to rebuild with changes.
I spent all day Saturday setting up a build environment and trying to get a testing thing working. I have just been importing into VS2008 as a web site from the local IIS server. I got it to rebuild the app without changes, but it ignores changes I would place in it.
So I need to make a solution out of this website and/or directory structure so that I can do actual, big, full grown-up rebuilds and make changes to this codebase. Anyone know how I can go about this?
EDIT: A bit more elaboration. I've tried creating a blank project and just Add Existing File... on the whole website directory. This hasn't worked, it stops the import about 10% in.
Keep in mind there are two (actually, three) levels of 'builds' or compiles going on here.
1) The DLLs in the /bin directory should be pre-built, by visual studio or otherwise. The content of .ASPX, ASCX, ASHX, ASAX etc fiels are not included in those.
2) The ASPX, etc files I noted above are then compiled by IIS when the first request comes in (normally; there are ways to change that behavior). That is the source of the error with Global.asax you are seeing; With the DLL(s) gone, the class that Global.asax is supposed to inherit from does not exist.
3) Then there is the just-in-time compilation, which is not relevant for this discussion.
It sounds like you may be missing the source files for the project, or perhaps the web site is not getting properly set up as a project to compile that DLL
Try these links, I suppose this is what you are looking for.
http://www.dotnetmafia.com/blogs/dotnettipoftheday/archive/2010/01/20/linking-files-in-visual-studio.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306234
Not sure this question is really valid anymore. The source we were working with was rather different than it should have been. Not sure if someone got angry in the past and moved stuff around or what, but grabbing a new copy of the source fixed most of our issues. I am able to build now with an included csproj.
This doesn't really help many others with the same issue I suppose, but if you are getting weird build behavior like this, you might want to start with basics, like making sure that your source checkout is valid.
I am new in asp.net so I am not sure it is a professional way or not.
I have the project without .snl file. I just create a empty web site and then paste the files inside the folder where I created the project.
It worked for me.
I think pasting the files and folder directly by file manager will help you.
For example how this site is organized?
What i do not understand is what they upload to the Microsoft server?
I have created, with Visual studio, a very small web-page and i have to upload the whole site, even after the smallest change...
The usual approach is to replace everything with xcopy or the publish function in visual-studio, and in some cases replacing everything is the only approach - for example if you're using the web-application project model everything gets packaged into a single assembly and there you go - even to apply a small change you'll have to re-deploy the whole thing.
An alternative to this could be the Website model in visual studio, using which you should be able to deploy single code files on your server and they should be picked-up if you re-start the website from the IIS management tool. This model - in fact - works in a different way compared to the web-application project model. It's just a bunch of code files that will be dynamically compiled by the ASP.NET runtime.
Even if possible though - I wouldn't suggest the approach of deploying single files - as this is easily error prone (you deploy the code-behind and could easily forget to deploy the aspx counterpart, or similar). Unless you're delpoying Gigs of stuff over slow-networks, redeploying the whole thing is always the safest bet.
Have a look at this and this interesting links to find out more about website and web-application project models in visual studio.
It really depends a lot on how you're building your app.
If you're in VS and you're doing an ASP.Net site, then you can either do it as a Website Project, or as a Web Application project.
in the former case, your files will remain as aspx and .aspx.cs files and you xcopy (or FTP) whichever files change. if you want logic that's outside the scope of a single page, you'll either create a separate class library project or else use the App_code directory.
In the latter case, you'll compile all the logic into one or more .dll files that get copied to your site's /bin directory, and any number of aspx files that can either stay as such or be embedded (recommend leaving them as aspx files). Again, if an aspx file changes, you just movethe one that changed, if anything in the dll changes, you replace a whole dll.
All that said, a huge chunk of what's on the site you posted is probably being pulled out of the database. Most sites now dont' have content on pages, they just have organizational (view) logic on paes, and have other classes which fetch the actual content out of a database to serve up. This allows greater reuse and means that the 4,000 pages (number chosen at random) on MSDN don't have to be each coded individually as an HTML page.
After Googling i think, the check-box Use fixed naming and single page assemblies in the publish Website form of the Visual studio, is the right choice.
Although it might slow things down...
We have a couple of large solutions, each with about 40 individual projects (class libraries and nested websites). It takes about 2 minutes to do a full rebuild all.
A couple of specs on the system:
Visual Studio 2005, C#
Primary project is a Web Application Project
40 projects in total (4 Web projects)
We use the internal VS webserver
We extensively use user controls, right down to a user control which contains a textbox
We have a couple of inline web projects that allows us to do partial deployment
About 120 user controls
About 200.000 lines of code (incl. HTML)
We use Source Safe
What I would like to know is how to bring down the time it takes when hitting the site with a browser for the first time. And, I'm not talking about post full deployment - I'm talking about doing a small change in the code, build, refresh browser.
This first hit, takes about 1 minute 15 seconds before data gets back.
To speed things up, I have experimented a little with Ram disks, specifically changing the <compilation> attribute in web.config, setting the tempDirectory to my Ram disk.
This does speed things up a bit. Interestingly though, this totally removed ALL IO access during first hit from the browser.
Remarks
We never do a full compile during development, only partial. For example, the class library being worked on is compiled and then the main site is compiled which then copies the binaries from the class library to the bin directory.
I understand that the asp.net engine needs to parse all the ascx/aspx files after critical files have been changed (bin dir for example) but, what I don't understand is why it needs to do that when only one library dll has been modified.
So, anybody know of a way to either:
Sub segment the solutions to provide faster first hit or fine tune settings in config files or something.
And, again: I'm only talking about development, NOT production deployment, so doing the pre-built compile option is not applicable.
Thanks, Ruvan
Wow, 120 user controls, some of which only contain a single TextBox? This sounds like a lot of code.
When you change a library project, all projects that depend on that library project then need to be recompiled, and also every project that depends on them, etc, all the way up the stack. You know you've only made a 1 line change to a function which doesn't affect all of your user controls, but the compiler doesn't know that.
And as you're probably aware ASPX and ASCX files are only compiled when the web application is first hit.
A possible speed omprovement might be gained by changing your ASCX files into Composite Controls instead, inside another Library Project. These would then be compiled at compile time (if you will) rather than at web application load time.