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.
Related
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?
I am developing a piece of an existing web site and am having numerous issues trying to upload my files to the server. Everything runs fine locally, but once I put my files on the server things start breaking.
Right now I have a page that gets this error
"Parser Error Message: Could not load type '[Namespace].[PageName]'
. If I take out the inherits statement, it works. The namespace and the pagename are declared in the code behind, which is referenced in the page header.
I also just noticed that all of the pages that predate me don't have code behinds.
There are two options for putting a file on a web server.
One option is to compile it and use a "Publish" feature, in which all of your code-behind files are NOT on the server, and are instead are compiled down to the .dll.
Another is to not compile the site, and simply copy all the aspx ans .cs (or .vb) files out there, uncompiled.
Actually there are three, but I think you only need to deal with these two right now. They are described further at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178466(v=vs.100).aspx under the "Flexible Deployment" section.
Your predecessor apparently used the first method. The only way to fix this is to get the compiled .dll files out of the \bin directory, and decompile them using a tool like Reflector or Teleriks's Just Decompile. (The latter is free, the former has a free for a limited time trial period.)
Alternatively, if you can get the full source code, you can simply remove all the content already out ther and publish it using the non-compiled method. Of course, there will be down time, and you'll need to test pretty carefully...
When you have a codebehind file, it needs to get compiled into a DLL, and that DLL needs to be in the bin directory of the webserver. It doesn't actually work fine without the Inherits - nothing from your codebehind would be in there - it may only display ok initially, but none of the events would fire.
If the rest of the site is all done with the code included in the .aspx pages, then those pages are all standalone. But if you want to use codebehinds, then you'll need to publish the DLL.
Test easiest way to get your code up and running would be publishing the code. Inside of your project in Visual Studio right click on your application and click on publish then for the location you can just create a folder on your local system and select only files needed to run this application then select publish. It will only copy the files needed to run the application and you can copy those files to your server and everything should be correct. I will also copy your web.config/app.config file so make sure that everything is correct in that file or delete that file from the directory once the publish is done.
So I eventually talked to the lead developer for the other group that works on the site. He explained that they do a Solution Rebuild then just move any changed as*x files and the /bin .dll. For some reason, my subversion client didn't actually update anything when I asked it to update, so my branch didn't have some new controls the other group made. When I would build my solution it didn't include the .dlls for the new controls, so when I uploaded my dll the new controls weren't defined and I got the same message. When I took the new dll down, my controls weren't defined.
Anyway, I fixed that. Thanks for the answers.
Just read about the possibility to use codefile=somefile.aspx.cs instead of codebehind=somefile.aspx.cs in web application projects (described here). Obviously this causes the file the compile only when loading the page, it's not precompiled anymore (right?).
Are there any negative or unexpected side-effects by using codefile instead of codebehind in a web application project?
I think you could run into problems for supportability if your site isn't all one or the other. (CodeFile or CodeBehind)
i.e. If you're trying to figure out a problem on your production site that your error handling tells you is within a certain file or namespace, you'll have to stop to examine every file and control that you are supporting before troubleshooting to see if the page is running as part of the compiled assembly or running from the codebehind on the site.
You could also run into conflicting or missing namespaces if you try to have a mixed environment.
Pros as I see it for CodeFile:
Your production source code can sit on your production website. If the code is all compiled in a DLL in your bin directory, there is no absolute guarantee that the code you have on your development environment or source control is what's out there. (Sure it SHOULD be, but if everything was always as it should be, many of us wouldn't have jobs fixing other people's code!)
For updates, you only have to push out single files, not an entire assembly.
You would be able to have developments in progress on other pages that you don't need to back out before recompiling and publishing to production.
Cons:
Since you're not pushing out a compiled assembly, you may have errors within individual files, that won't necessarily be caught unless someone visits each specific page or if you are sure to compile before deploying.
You may have conflicting namespaces in codefiles that may never be caught and could cause confusion or errors.
Performance issues for dynamic compilation
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...