I have a problem and need advice on how to start solving it.
I have made a an ASP.NET site with visual web Developer that use a VB.NET DLL.
I configure in WEB.config, the connection string for the database.
The problem is that I need to have many copies of this site, each one connecting to a different database. That means, that I have to have one copy of each aspx, one of the dll, etc. for each site, which is a nightmare in terms of actualization, because I need that every site is equal to the others. If I add some functionality to one site a need to update every other. If I have 2 or 3 sites there's no problem but actually I have near 30 and growing.
My idea was to split the site in two: one simple login site per each client which stored the connection string, fill the session variable(including connection string) and then redirect to a single application site, which is the same for each client. But the problem is that is hard (for what I know) to share session objects between sites.
I'm I missing something? is there a better solution for this problem?
Related
This is a bit unusual, but somewhat reasonable. I have a domain say mycompany.com and a sub domain demos.mycompany.com and I want to host some demo applications under this sub domain.
So I created a website in IIS (7.5) say demos.mycompany, and added 2 applications to it named demo1 and demo2 which contains a different website application, and they can be accessed via demos.mycompany/demo1 and demos.mycompany/demo2. The root website (demos.mycompany.com) loads correctly and works fine. But the problem is for demo1 which is an asp.net web api project. The problem occurs when a request to web services is made, for example demos.mycompany/api/Account/UserInfo is not found because the project base URL is changed to demos.mycompany/demo1 and therefore the mentioned web service is available at demos.mycompany/demo1/api/Account/UserInfo.
I don't know if there will be other problems with this approach. This was just the one big problem that I found, There may be other shortcomings to this.
Are there any suggestions to solve this problem?
Is there any other issues to consider before going on with this approach?
In an upcoming version of a currently-in-development webapp, I need to serve multiple domains from a single site. The code on the site will recognize the individual domains and vary the content accordingly. I do not know all of the domains that we will be serving, as clients can add new domains to their site. The coding parts, I know how to do - when clients add a domain, there will be a corresponding entry into our database and that will act as a key to control which set of content is shown.
The thing is, I suck at system administration. The server already hosts a dozen different sites unrelated to this webapp, so it's not a situation where every domain that hits our server's IP can go through the code I describe above. If I knew the domains ahead of time, I could simply point them to our server's IP and then create bindings in IIS to handle each. But since I do not know the domains ahead of time, I'm rather at a loss. What can I do to enable my IIS7 server to support this situation?
After looking around a bit, I have found a few options for this.
1) Building It Into The Code
Probably the best option is to programmatically create bindings in IIS6 and in IIS7. This way everything is integrated into the webapp, meaning there's no muss or fuss outside of the app. It requires a bit more work in the app itself, but the benefits of keeping things clean and keeping all the functionality around this action inside the single codebase are almost definitely worth it.
2) PowerShell
Another option is to set up a script for powershell to have it handle this stuff based on the script detecting changes to the database. This would work well also, but has the drawback of creating two codebases to maintain.
3) Remove Domain Bindings
This answer led me to try removing the existing domain from the webapp's bindings in IIS. Making this change resulted in being able to reach my webapp by just visiting the IP address (so the binding was no longer an issue). And the one domain we have set for this webapp so far still reached the desired site as well. So it seems that the solution could be as simple as to have no host/domain listed in the bindings on IIS. As long as only one site does this, all traffic that does not match another binding loads that site. A big upside here is that it takes less time/effort than any of the coding solutions mentioned above. The downside is that you can only have one site on the server perform this way, and you can no longer have the server locked to only serving content with recognized domains.
Is it possible to add a extra ip address to the server?
This way you could let the IIS process all request on this IP address and run your logic for these request only. leaving the existing websites untouched.
I want to create a new website. The website has 3 applications, each one has its own membership/profile provider.
I want the user to be able to log in to the site with one single sign on.
Possible option AFAIK:
Define the same machinekeys/Connection Strings for all applications in their web.config files and I think I'm all set.
Does this work? And I'm curious to see if there's any other way.
Yeah, that is the path to go. Just make sure the config settings are identical and all three apps will work together just fine.
As a side: you say you want to build a new website with 3 applications. Are those "apps" separate sites or virtual directories of the top site? In other words, will they share the same URL?
The only issue I can think of is if the URL's are different then the session id's will also be different and therefore force the user to log in to each of them on access. This might be okay in your situation. With your method the credentials will be the same though.
Our customer has a requirement to extend the functionality of their existing large government project. It is an ASP.NET 3.5 (recently upgraded from 2.0) project.
The existing solution is quite a behemoth that is almost unmaintainable so they have decided that they want to provide the new functionality by hosting it on another website that is shown within the existing website.
As to how this is best to be done I'm not quite sure right now and if there is any security issues preventing it or that need to be considered.
Essentially the user would log on to the existing web site as normal and when cliicking on a certain link the page would load as normal with some kind of frame or control that has within it the contents of the page from the other site. IE. They do not want to simply redirect to the other site they want to show it embedded within the current one such that the existing menus etc are still available.
I believe if information needed to be passed to the embedded page it would be done using query strings as I'm not sure if there is even another way to accomplish this.
Can anyone give me some pointers on where to start at looking to implement this or any potential pitfalls I should be aware of.
Thanks
if the 2 sites are hosted from the same network (low latency between them) you could use state server for session management. that way, when you authenticate on one site, you will also be authenticated on the other, and share user state across them.
its pretty simple, in your web config of each web server you'd point to the state server (which could be located on one of the web servers)
<configuration>
<system.web>
<sessionState mode="StateServer"
stateConnectionString="192.168.1.103:42424"
/>
</system.web>
</configuration>
http://en.csharp-online.net/ASP.NET_State_Management%E2%80%94Storing_Session_State_out_of_Process
create a virtual directory under the primary domain. If your domain is www.mydomain.com then create a virtual directory www.mydomain.com/site and port the new website application under /site virtual directory. This was linking should become very much relavant. With this the virtual-directory application will also retain all domain cookies set by primary domain.
I would suggest to make the second website look exactly like the first one or at least use the same MasterPage, so you can redirect from one site to another without any visual difference.
If your site needs authentication, consider that you would need to do something to prevent the user to log in twice, an option could be to send an encrypted token to the second site.
All of this if you are forced to have a second site, if not just use a virtual directory
You could use something like UFrame. I've used it a couple of times and seems to do quite a good job with it...
"goodness of UpdatePanel and IFRAME combined"
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/uframe.aspx
I would use an iFrame to embed that website in within your existing application. Just set the "src" attribute and pass in any query string parameters the other site needs to render correctly.
You can still pass in sensitive data in the query string, however it would make sure to encrypt it before sending it in.
I know it is not the most elegant solution, but it gets the job done. And from the description of the existing app, it doesn't seem like your customer cares for "elegance" :)
Hope this helps
I am trying to get a grasp on how to handle updates to a live, functioning ASP.NET (2.0 or greater) Application while there are users on the site.
For example, suppose SO is an ASP.NET Web Application project. The project code compiles down to the single .DLL in the BIN folder. Now, there are constantly users on SO, so what would happen to users' actions/sessions if you would use the Visual Studio .NET "Publish" feature (or just FTP everything again manually) while they are using the site?
Would creating an ASP.NET Web Site, instead, alleviate any problems that may or may not exist with the scenario above? I am beginning to develop a web site as a user-driven Web Application, and I want to make sure that my inexperience with this would not potentially annoy the [potentially] many users that I [want to] have 24/7.
EDIT: Sorry, I should have put this in a more exact context. Assume that this site is being hosted by a web hosting service with monthly fees. I won't be managing the server itself, just what the web host allows as a user of their services.
I create two Web sites in IIS. One is the production Web site, and the other is a static Web site with an HttpHandler that sends all requests to a single static "We're updating" HTML page served with an HTTP 503 Service Unavailable. Typically the update Web site is turned off. When it's time to update, we stop the production Web site, start the update Web site, and now we can fiddle with the production Web site all we want without worrying about DLLs being locked or worker processes needing to be spun down.
I started doing this because
App_Offline.htm really does not work well in Web Gardens, which we use.
App_Offline.htm serves its page as 404, which is bad if you're down for a meaningful period of time.
We can start the upgraded production Web site with modified settings (only listening on localhost), where we can do a last-minute acceptance/verification that everything is working before we flip the switch, turning off the update Web site and re-enabling the production Web site.
Things this does not solve include
Any maintenance that requires a restart of the server--you still have downtime where no page is served.
Any maintenance that diddles with the .NET runtime, like upgrading to the latest service pack.
Other approaches I've seen include
Having two servers. Send all load balancing requests to one server, upgrade the other one; then rinse and repeat. Most of us don't have this luxury.
Creating multiple bin directories, like bin-1.0.0.0 and bin-1.1.0.0 and telling ASP.NET which bin directory to use in the web.config file. (One advantage of this is that reverting to a previous binary is just editing a config file. A disadvantage is that it's harder to revert resources that don't end up in your binaries, like templates and images and such.) I don't remember how this actually worked--I think the application did some late assembly loading in its Global.asax based on its own web.config section (since you touched the web.config, the app had restarted, so it was okay).
If you find a better way, let me know!
Changing to the asp.net web site model won't have any effect, as the recycle will also happen, some of changes that trigger it for sure: web.config, global.asax, app_code.
After the recycle, user will still be logged in because asp.net will just validate the syntax. That is given you use a fixed machine key, otherwise it will change on each recycle. This is something you want to do anyway as other stuff can break if the key change across requests i.e. viewstate validation, embedded resources (decryption of the url fails).
If you can put the session out of process, like in sql server, you will avoid loosing the session. If you can't, your code will have to consider that. There are plenty of scenarios where you can avoid using session, and others were you can wrap it and re-retrieve the info if the session was cleaned. This should leave you with a handful specific cases that you know can give trouble to the users, so for those you do some of the suggestions others have already made.
One solution could be to deploy your application into a load balanced environment (web farm).
When deploying a new version you would use the load balancer to redirect requests to the server you are not deploying to.
App_offline.htm is great solution for this I think.
in SO we see application currently unavailable page when a deployment begins.
I am not sure how SO handles it.. But we usually put a holding page. So what ever the user has done (adding question or answering questions) does not get updated. As soon as he updates something he will see a holding page asking him to try after sometime.
And if I am the user I usually press the back button to make sure what I entered is saved in the browser history so that I can post later.
Some site use use are in clustered environment so I take one server offline and inform the load balancer that she will not be available and once I make sure that the new version is working fine I make it live.. I do the same thing for the next server.
Do we have any other option?
It is not a technical solution, but set up a scheduled maintenance window. You can annoucement in advance giving your user base fair warning that there is a possiblity that the application will not be available during that time frame.