the website options are listed under previous versions node. Does it mean it is obsolete? What should be used going forward?
Pretty much, but you may still have a need for them, so they are still there.
These produce projects using the "Web Site" as opposed to the "Web Application" project format - which among other features don't have a .csproj file, typically require you to deploy all your raw code (.aspx and .cs/.vb in the App_Code folder), etc.
Microsoft recommend that you use the "Web Application" format, which is now covered by the "ASP.NET Web Application (.NET Framework)" option in the "Web" section.
For new development, we recommend that you choose web application projects. This topic explains that web site projects have some advantages, but many developers who choose web site projects eventually find that the disadvantages outweigh any perceived advantages.
Well it depends upon your usage like If you need to website your site in linux than go for core, need APIs than go for Web API instead of WCF etc
Related
I have created a new ASP.NET (.net framework) website (not core) and when i run the project i get the following files created in the bin folder - website.dll, website.dll.config, website,pdb.
1) Are these always created for websites?
I would prefer not to have them because when i want to make a change to a .cs file the dll needs to update which will reset all sessions.
2) How can this be done?
I have previous asp.net websites and these files never got created so i am a little confused. old net versions don't do it?
FYI Project settings - .NET Framework 4.7.2 and the output type is class library (other options are console application and console application.
You have two types of asp.net webform projects.
A)
A asp.net web site.
These sites are thus not really a visual studio project. When you create a asp.net web site, then you don't use file->open->project, but use file->open web site.
With such above site, each asp.net page will have a corresponding cs, or vb.net page for the code behind. And you can modify ONE page (say the markup, or code), hit save, and you are done. Such pages (and the code) is compiled on the fly by IIS (the web server).
A lot of people do like the above setup, since in many cases, if the web server is on your same network, you can open the live site directly. Make some changes, hit ctrl-s, and you are done. Of course EVERY page used thus results in a .dll being created.
So, above is still a option you can use (and what you likey were using in the past)
However, there is a 2nd choice,
Asp.net web site application.
The key word/term here is "application".
In a asp.net web site application, then you have a standard sln (project file), and you have to re-build and re-compile the WHOLE site before a new update or deploy.
this means that even changing ONE line of code behind forces you to do a FULL re-deploy of the web site. However, while this is somewhat more "pain" for a new deploy, it is still a far more controlled environment. This choice also means that visual studio (vs) does the compiling BEFORE deploying.
There are significant advantages to this setup. You can include multiple projects and assemblies (and get FAR BETTER compile time resolution). So, the more advanced a developer, the more say using git, and adopting use of class library's and objects?
And the more compile time checking, and the more you adopt class objects and liraies for your devleopment cycle? The more you perfer the applcation approch to software development. As noted, there is that ONE BIG penalty for the enjoyment of far better managment of referances, compiling, and management of a larger project - you lose the "one quick and dirty" deployment option.
So, you have to pre-compile the site/code, and then run it. IIS does not do the compiling (and more important than the management of those other external code libraries). In most cases, with a web site, to add new assemblies to your project, the .dll's will be placed in the bin file. (and I don't like that at all).
I far perfer when I do a clean project, that the WHOLE bin folder and ANY dll's are 100% blowen out of the water, and don't exist anymore. If you use a web site, then you will and MUST have a hodge podge of .dll's strewn all over the place. And EVERY single page with code behind creates a .dll.
So, while your hands are somewhat "more tied" with a asp.net web site application, from a developer point of view, the advantages far outweigh the additional work/effort to deploy.
I have zero, but BEYOND zero idea why you feel or don't like the idea of all of your referenced assemblies at compile time being managed for you, and they all get compiled, and placed in the bin folder for you. Be it a desktop applcation, a console application, or whatever? The hallmark of the compile process was and is to gather up all of your referenced assemblies and .dll's and dump/place/compile/manage/put them into the bin folder for you.
Better yet? When you publish, you can choose options to "merge" all of the .dll's into one dll. This really is much like using a linker for software development.
The other big advantage, is you can say develop with new rosyln compile features. (free form text for sql is really nice). Since vs is doing the compile for you, then you do NOT have to ensure that the web site and IIS requires the advanced compiler options.
So, much of which one you perfer comes down to:
Do you value developer features, better compile time resolving of assemblies, having VS compile the code for you, or do you want to toss out the code to the web site, and have IIS do the compile?
The above also means that your web site will require the source code when using the web site option. This can be someone of a issue for some developers, or even security. Since any modifying of such web pages will automatic trigger IIS to re-compile that page + code for you.
With a asp.net web site application, then no server IIS compile of your code occurs, and better yet, at compile time the .cs (or vb) pages are stripped out, source code is stripped out, and the source code pages (code behind) NEVER is placed on the server. You thus ONLY get the .dll's and the source aspx pages, but NOT the source code pages published on the server.
As of vs version 2022, BOTH template options are supported. So, if you want to use or go back to use web site as opposed to application development? You can make that choice. Just use file->open webs site, and don't use the .sln (project file) anymore.
And you can when creating a new web site choose "asp.net web site", or choose the preferred (by many) the "asp.net web site application".
So, for a lot of sites - especially those a bit older, often developers choose the web site option - the deployment and update is really far less hassle and is done with far greater ease then a application choice. Despite this greater ease of making small updates to the web site, I still far prefer the application choice, since it has far better options in terms of referencing, compiling, and just overall general application management features. Might not matter for your case, and if the current site was a web site (not web site application), then I do suggest you continue and keep that code and site "as is", as opposed to converting to a application.
It seems strange that your panties are all twisted up over having some .dll's appear in the bin folder at compile time, as opposed to a HUGE MOUNTIN of .dll's created for EVERY web page + code behind as what occurs when using a web site.
This compile time and dumping of .dll's into the bin folder? It how all console, desktop, and more .net applications has worked for over 20 years of .net. Can't possibly be a surprise to any .net developer, and in fact most will be confused and miss this approach to software when using a web site - since now IIS is doing the code compile - and not you nor is visual studio.
So above should clear up the difference between the two choices, and why you are seeing a different behavior from past projects. Sounds like that past project was a web site, and not a web site application.
I'm looking at the differences between a Web Site and a Web Application on MSDN, and am drawn to the features of a Web Site because I am tasked with devising an architecture in which customers can heavily customize the application we deliver. It seems this feature of web sites would be useful:
You want to be able to update individual files in production by just
copying new versions to the production server, or by editing the files
directly on the production server.
However, I'm also drawn to the MVC architecture because it has built in features for minifying scripts that are delivered to the client. I also kind of like the idea of breaking up the architecture into clean pieces since this is a very large data model we have.
But from what I can tell, these sets of features appear to be mutually exclusive. Is that true? I can't readily figure out how to create an MVC application in which custom views could be dropped in as pure source files, and be able to run, nor can I figure out how to take advantage of any MVC framework when creating a "Web Site" project. Am I missing something or do I have to pick my poison?
Take a look at ASP.NET templates in VS2013. You can create an app with both MVC and WebForms. This will probably give you a good combination of what you need. By default, view files are not compiled, so you'll always be able to publish new files without doing a full push if you want. In fact, VS2012 even allows you to publish select files or folders.
The choice between web site and web app to be is very simple. If you are creating a mostly static app, choose "web site". If you are creating an app that has even a decent amount of dynamic capabilities, choose "web app". Web Sites are not really designed to be dynamic, so the more dynamic you do in that setting, the more of a headache it will be to properly maintain it as the architecture just isn't where it would need to be.
What I would suggest is to spin both of them up and try out some scenarios that you are interested and see what works and what doesn't. Really think about how users will actually want to customize the app. Will they want to copy and paste files to production or would they rather request features and have them built properly? Or maybe they want to work with a workflow instead?
So make realistic business requirements, prototype and then decide. But based on what I'm hearing you want a WebApp and probably one that does MVC and WebForms.
Now everything ONE ASP.Net. You will be creating a WebForm, MVC, Webpages using ASP.Net platform.
Check this video about new features in VS 2013
Not sure you can create website in ASP.Net 4.5.
From my experience, I would go with WebApplication based project, where managing namespace and other stuffs are easy. In website its hard to get the standard name for the classes(randome) generated.
Go with MVC web application.
In Visual Studio, I tried a project in both. But there appears to be no difference in the tools displayed in the tool box....
So what the real basic major difference.?
See these:
ASP.NET Web Site or ASP.NET Web Application?
Website is for internet based audience - in this case your concerns(security, etc) are different;
Web application is a software, just like a desktop application software, usually intended to be used for intranet environments. For instance, an HR software could be a web app - that is available on the intranet for all the departments to fill in their timesheets.
Though, a website may contain specific operations, tasks, or workflows.
Checkout: Web site project vs Web app project
WebSite project is compiled on the fly.
In a WebApplication, you need to build a page before you can debug.
However, WebApplication is the way to go, because with WebSite-project, you cannot create a setup project (and conversion from WebSite to WebApplication can lead to problems/bugs).
That's why I recommend WebApplication.
Simply put, a WebSite is worth nothing if the customer is too stupid to install it manually.
I've heard recently that you can precompile Web Application projects. My question is how?
Right now, when I do a publish for my web application and select only files needed to run this application I get it published but it still has all my ASPX pages and it will still only JIT compile the pages. How do I make it so that all of the ASPX pages are precompiled before putting them on the server?
You can download a project template called a Web Deployment Project (WDP) (VS2008 version here), which enhances the build and deployment features of Visual Studio. This basically wraps features of aspnet_compile.exe, but allows you to do this visually as part of your overall solution.
Besides pre-compilation, it also allows you do a number of interesting things, like config file replacement (great for deploying to different environments) and setting how your assemblies are built (per-page, per-site, etc.).
Two good Scott Guthrie blogs about this project type:
announcement of the tool for VS2008:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/28/vs-2008-web-deployment-project-support-released.aspx
basic walk-through of the tool
(VS2005 version, but it's basically
the same in VS2008):
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/11/06/429723.aspx
I've used this project type for some VS2005 and VS2008 projects and it's invaluable (especially for those legacy web site projects!!).
I didn't know this was also in the MSDN library, but here's a nice article in MSDN for WDP's.
I hope this helps!
EDIT:
WDP's exist for VS2005 and VS2010 also.
Unfortunately, the way to do this isn't spectacular. You would have to "deploy" the solution locally, then move it, or just compile it on the server where it will go. Either way uses aspnet_compiler.exe. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms227976%28v=VS.90%29.aspx for more details.
When you publish the site, uncheck the option that says "Allow this precompiled site to be updateable".
Which Visual Studio template should be used for a ASP.NET web site, the Web Site template or the Project | Web Application template?
you'd better read this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa730880(VS.80).aspx
in my opinion it depends on what you are developing
Both function and perform similarly, but still differ in following ways:
Web application:
We can't include C# and VB pages in single web application.
We can set up dependencies between multiple projects.
Can not edit individual files after deployment without recompiling.
Right choice for enterprise environments where multiple developers work unitedly for creating, testing and deployment.
Web site:
Can mix VB and C# page in single website.
Can not establish dependencies.
Edit individual files after deployment.
Right choice when one developer will responsible for creating and managing entire website.
Web application projects works more like a traditional VS project, which has a project file, is compiled in one step and so on.
Web site projects works more like classic ASP or PHP-sites. There is no project file (references are stored in the solution file), and pages are recompiled dynamically on the server. The nice thing with web sites is that you can just ftp to the server and change a file in a text editor. You dont need VS. Some may hate that, though.
It probably depends on your background. If you are used to ASP or PHP style development, web site projects will seem more natural to you. If you have a traditional application developer background, web application projects will seem more natural.
If you're using Team Foundation Server for source control, you'll probably have to use a Web Application Project, as you need a .csproj file.
There are more details from Jeff Atwood himself: Web Site Projects vs. Web Application Projects
Web Site web projects are particularly painful in Team System due to the lack of a physical file that contains project information and metadata. For example, it's impossible to check in code analysis rules on Web Site projects, because the code analysis rules are stored entirely on the client!
I prefer a website. A website is a collection of files in a directory. It becomes more portable and deployable. A web application clouds the issue with a project file.
Personally I use web application projects exclusively now. I actually converted a rather web site to a web application because of compilation times for the web site.
I also use pre-build events to move configuration specific configuration files around and pre-build and post-build events are not available in web sites.
In Visual Studio 2015, I've come to somewhat prefer web site projects over web app projects. I still use visual studio though because you get Nuget Packaging, you can install nuget packages to both types of projects.
However a WebSite Project does not have a project file, you are literally just adding a folder to your solution.
However you can still have code, but I prefer to put it in a separate project.
In WebApp projects you have your Assets, Css, Views (razor, aspx etc), Controllers/Code Behinds etc all in one project and it just mashes together. I prefer to work with websites in two halves. The front end (css, js, images, "html/cshtml/aspx/ashx/.master/etc") and the back end (all the code).
So I create a Web Site project and a class Library to accompany it (in visual studio you can add references to the web site project). I add my class Library as a dependency and all Code is in the class Library. You can still have a global.asax, you just have to tell it that the code behind is in another dll (not the one that the site will compile to). MVC views, you just specify the namespaces like normal (the dll is referrence so the namespaces are there). And in WebForms you Just have to remember to include the assembly name with your type references that the code is in.
It's a little tedious to get use to, but when you do you have isolated structure, everything is in a place that makes sense and modularized in an easy to maintain way.
And the PLUS side is that because the Web Site is just a folder (no project file) it can be opened in Visual Studio Code easily, and other popular text editors making it easy for designers to work on the css/js/images etc (which are not in the code project). Keeping the layer designers separated, the designer sees just what they need to see.
Now structure wise. I keep my code local on my machine checked into a subversion repository using Tortoise SVN and Visual SVN (java/.net shop). To test locally I install IIS and I set the website project up in IIS locally just like I would on the dev/prod servers.
Then I install MSDeploy on the dev/prod servers and I use the Publish web app feature via MSDeploy in visual studio and I use web.config transformations. So I have web.config transformations for dev and prod and the main web.config without transformations is for local testing (so it works for all devs on the project).
To previous stated cons: Having a WebSite Project vs a WebApp Project doesn't mean multiple developers can't work on it, that's only if your WebSite Project is on some server some where and you are loading it directly from there which would be bad practice.
You can treat a WebSite Project just like any other Visual Studio project, local code, source control, multiple developers.
As a final note, an added benefit of separating your code is you can put all of your code in a shared project. Then you can create a Class Library for each port you might do, say one on straight .net 4.6 and another on .net core 5 and link in your shared project. As long as your code is compatible with both, it will build and you don't have any duplicated code files.