I'm building an asp.net application that will be deployed on Azure. For the moment, I'm using regular asp.net: I'm building it in VS.
I have a web service that's in an asxm file MyService.asmx with a code behind file MyService.cs that calls a different class library called MyBigClass.cs that does most of the work.
If I want to prepare for a deployment on Azure in a few months and make that web service work in its own web role that I can scale based on usage load, should I put the classes that are in the MyBigClass.cs file into the MyService.cs file? The MyBigClass.cs file contains classes that are used for other parts of the application as well; should I remove these classes and only include the ones used by the web service?
Thanks.
Difficult to give a specific answer, and to be honest - I don't think the answer to this would be Windows-Azure-specific, but rather - this is simply a design best practice question, isn't it?
It comes down to how you will go about maintaining the application, and how you are going to manage versioning, but generally speaking - code that isn't shared does not need to get deployed to both roles, so either move it back with the 'parnet' solution (web app or service), or keep in a separate assembly which you will deploy with only the relevant role.
Code that is shared between the web app and service will exist in a shared assembly which you will deploy into both roles.
So you might end up with the following projects
A web site
An assembly supporting the web site
A Web service Service
An assembly supporting the web service
A shared assembly between the web site and web service
I hope this makes sense
Related
I am about to convert my Winforms applications to an ASP.NET Web Application. The only question I have is the following:
My Winforms application connects to a server via TCP/IP connection (TCPClient), and handles all requests and commands through my own custom protocols (Strings sent that are validated server side and sent back to client)
Can I keep this same Server to handle the requests from my ASP.Net Web Application (I plan on using the same protocol)?
Will there be anything I have to change within the server? How different is migrating a Winforms application to an ASP.Net application?
Do you suggest I use WebForms or MVC?
Well, we might be confusing things here some what.
You have a asp.net application. Then the question is:
asp.net webforms application
or
asp.net webform web site
While both above are similar?
Well, in the first case, a web application means that you compile your code BEFORE web deploy, and for the most part this site is to be considered the WHOLE site (the web config file is in root etc.). And any external assemblies etc. are linked at compile (or publish time). And you are as a general rule NOT EDITING and design and working against the actual web site files. In other words, the folder that holds your project CAN NOT JUST be dragged say to a web server folder and it will work.
And of course this allows you to write custom handlers for pdf files or whatever.
So you can add + hook into the http handlers.
And of course this also allows you to build say a custom logon (authentication provider).
So, you can think of a web application more like a WHOLE application - just like say all the truckloads of source files that you have for a desktop application. You THEN compile this whole big thing, and you compile down to that .exe (or .dll).
You THEN must web publish the whole thing as a application to the web server.
so this is the whole site. Things like custom logon providers, http handlers, and even trapping the Session() start can be done.
And When you web publish, then you get a standard web site, and folders and all of the SOURCE vb.net (or c#) files are removed. Just like compiling down and deploying any desktop application - the source code and files are REMOVED. Needless to say, this approach is "common" to developers coming from a desktop environment.
So no sub-sites really can be done with this model. You are hooking DIRECTLY into the IIS web server.
A web site?
That is ONLY a set of folders that you can have the IIS site work against. In fact one could argue that AFTER you publish a web application, you get "mostly" the SAME thing as a web site.
But this model with any ease cobble up a web site with say 5 pages and JUST deploy that to your local web hosting? Nope!!! - can't do that!
The reason of course is you NOT dealing with ready made web site layouts and files. You HAVE to compile the whole mess into a application.
So like deploying an desktop application you are deploying a WHOLE system.
Now, if you going to have a site with say user logons, passwords and write a custom authenticaiton provider that IIS will respect and use? Again a web site can't do that.
So again you need a code system that supports logon hooks, and lets you control what those people can see and do. So for a line of business application? Well that quite much going to be a whole system - and thus you need control of logons, a master page(s) etc.
So the root, the config files, how they EVEN logon to your site? Everything must be just right and that config setup and file is the BASE SITE configuration for the web server. You can change authnetical providers - include custom http handles etc.
So this is a whole custom site here. And as noted, this is publish type operations.
However, asp.net for a long time ALSO supports what is called a web site.
So when the web started? Well, you just dumped web pages into some folders - maybe some hyper links to jump around. But a LOT of developers started out working this way. And because you can DIRECT edit the files and save them back to the site? Then no real concept of a application compile or even a web publish exists in this context. It just files sitting in a web ready format and a simple set of folders.
So a asp.net web site = just folders and files - no publish.
Now for one small change, no question that a web site is nice. And BETTER is that you can say take a set of folders and just DROP them into a existing web site - your not really publishing anything, so like the old days, you just edit and copy files to the web server folders and they work. This of course common fair html files.
But IIS does support using aspx pages (files) this way also!
Since this is just SOME folders with web pages? Then you can create and build say a bunch of different folders - each having their own cute little mini-web site. And this means that publishing to your cheap $8 per month asp.net hosting is possbile. You don't need a full IIS server and the ability to manage the IIS server system. All you EVER do is just copy files to the web site. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result, you don't have use of Session() start, and even the logon events are not under your control (unless of course you rolled your own and don't use IIS security.
With simple files and folders? Then your $8 hosting site can be used.
However, all if not most low cost simple hosting sites don't support asp.net applications.
So you can think of a web publish as replacing your base web application system the hosting provider gives to you. it also why you do NOT get use of the full ASP.net and IIS configuration options for the web site (your web provider controls and has that!!!).
One huge benefit of web sites is ease of change. As noted, you can point VS to directly edit even on the live web site files!!! There is really not concept of publishing - you just editing files and saving them to the web site folder. And this is really nice for a small change - the web site will re-compile the code for you, and for a large site, you can make a change to one wee bit of code behind and the web page - just copy that page and code to the site and you are DONE!!!
With a web application? you are doing a full-re compile, re-publish to the site for ANY and all changes. (well, ok, you could sneak in and say edit/change some markup on web page, but for the most part anything that messes with controls on a page would and could very easy break the compiled .dll's that are driving that page.
do you suggest I use WebForms or MVC?
That is a huge deal. MVC does not even have a visual designer for your web pages (you can only see and write markup).
And the whole MVC code model and whole event model is VERY different. So perhaps while a great idea to adopt MVC? (it is!!), it is darn near a whole re-write of your existing site - they work very different from asp.net webforms applications.
to a server via TCP/IP connection (TCPClient), and handles all requests and commands through my own custom protocols
If you mean custom http handlers? No, web sites don't' support this, you have to be creating a web site application. You can't by a simple act of placing some web pages on a web site have the lower level http handlers and network stuff change - you can only do that with a web application. Same goes for the authentication provider(s) you choose - simple web sites don't allow you to build your own custom providers (but you can roll your own logon system from scratch - but you not then enjoy even simple setups that automatic secure web pages based on their memberships in given security roles.
We are developing intranet base solution in ASP.NET MVC. It will be deployed across client's own internal network hence respective employee of client can use it.
As it is IIS based intranet application, one can easily copy files and configure IIS on other server. So what are the different solution available to prevent this.
Thank you in advance.
Generally when you are publishing the ASP.NET MVC web app, you can publish the version in dlls.
So Instead of creating a single Web App, you can create a new dll file where you are going to compile all the Models of the App and save it in a dll).
Then coming back to your original solution you will add the reference to this dll so no logic can be taken of your solution.
I'm pretty new to Silverlight/RIA/Asp.Net thing, and I'm trying to figure if an Asp.Net website is required (for hosting the app) if I wish to use RIA services with Silverlight?
You could use a Web Application for hosing the RIA services in which is a compiled version of a Web Site. This is a distinction made by Visual Studio for different types of web projects but that might not be what you mean.
Really though RIA is just web service that takes a certain set of parameters. You technically could use PHP and generate the same content although that seems like it might be a bit of work unless there are frameworks that already do this.
Your RIA service will need to live somewhere online though. You don't need a website with web pages but you will need to run the service in a web server like IIS and that means it probably needs to live in a web site, even if the website doesn't have any web pages.
No, you can not use RIA services without an ASP.NET application. While it is true that you can create the backend data service with PHP (or a number of other web technologies), that would not be making use of RIA services.
The basic idea of RIA services is to provide a super simply means of plumbing your data classes through ASP.NET. Mostly it is used in conjunction with an ORM and additional metadata classes in your web application. You then provide a service to manipulate your data. When you compile the solution than the work you did in the web project gets pushed into your Silverlight application (through code generation).
First off, i'm fairly new to programming, I've built a few asmx web services but I am a little lost regarding how I should set up a WCF web service. I've tried to research this over the past couple days by reading through a lot of the documentation/articles/videos on MSDN but I'm still a confused.
Since my current web services are hosted on a separate box using IIS, from what I understand I need to create a WCF Library, then reference the Library in another WCF App and then host that app in IIS and reference the WCF App from my Front End? Seems like an extra step to me...? Not to mention a pain when developing on my local box.
Any advice or a point in the right direction would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
WCF gives you the option of sharing common assemblies (i.e. so both your service and clients can use the same domain model library), but it's not a necessary step.
You can host a WCF service through ASP.NET, same as ASMX. The "WCF Service Application" project template in Visual Studio configures it this way by default - as a WCF service hosted in IIS.
For the most common scenarios, it's really no different from ASMX. You create a WCF Service application, deploy it to a web server, and add service references in client applications. The importer will automatically generate classes for you, so you don't need to reference any assembly. No extra steps.
If you haven't already, you really should have a look through Microsoft's Tutorial. You'll find the steps very similar to those for setting up an ASMX-based architecture.
What way makes the most sense? I have a ASP.NET app... and maybe a Silverlight app in the future.. I want both to talk to web services..
At first, I like have the WCF project be by it self for the seperation..
But then I thought.. What is the point since I can just as easily have a 'WEBSERVICES' folder that contains all the .svc files and code in the EXISTING website project. ... Atleast that way.. deploying to a remote host will be a little easier since everything is in one project..
any other considerations ?
Why not have:
your WCF service and data contracts in a Contracts assembly
your WCF service implementations in a Services assembly
reference those two assemblies from your web site or web app
put the *.svc files into a WebServices directory
That way, you have
clean and nicely organized separation of concerns
the deployment files (*.svc) are in your web site / web app as you want
you can still extend / use your WCF code in other ways (e.g. self-hosting) later on without much fuss
Two things to consider:
Security - are your services only going to be used by your application, or do they have the potential to be used anywhere else (after all they are services). If so, you will be granting access to your application in order to grant access to your web services, or at least tweaking the access to that specific folder, which might lead to security breaches.
Deployment - If you do changes on your service that doesn't break the contract, in order to deploy the changes you will have to deploy the whole application.
I would prefer to go with the approach that Marc suggested (e.g. have an assembly for contracts, one for the service implementation) and have the webservice hosted as its own application and reference it from the ASP.NET app. This way, you have proper separation of concerns and can maintain both separately.