Is it possible to debug (with VS 2008) a site at my host? I have no particular control of the server, I'm only allowed to upload my website files to the server. I can however upload .pdb files etc.
The reason for me wanting this is because the site works fine on my dev machine, but refuses to show even the first page when deployed on the server (404-error).
Maybe a long-shot, but in my experience the "works-on-my-machine-but-returns-404-on-the-server" problem is often a consequence of that the WebServer Extension "ASP.NET v2.0.50727" is prohibited.
As Ganesh R points out, it may sound like your application never gets startet.
As for the debugging part, I don't think you would be able to pull that off...
Debugging requires that certain debugging components are installed and enabled on the server. This is highly unlikely to be the case on any production hosting platform.
Contact your hosting provider - they will usually be quite willing to help you diagnose the problem you are encountering.
I am currently using Visual Studio 2008 on XP Pro SP3.
Developing against http://localhost/ everything including debugging works fine.
I need a second website on my machine. IIS 5.1 only allows one website at a time so I used the JetStat XP Pro IIS Admin tool to create a second website. This runs by stopping the Default website and starting the other.
I have added the new website name into the Hosts file and mapped to 127.0.0.1.
Websites can be accessed via this address http://NewHostname/VirtualDirectoryName
Projects can be started without debugging (Web Applications & Websites).
However, when I try to debug I get an error: "Unable to start debugging on the web server. An authentication error occurred while communicating with the web server."
Integrated Authentication is enabled in IIS.
I have seen a lot of documentation with many fixes for "unable to start debugging on the web server" errors but they all seem like huge overkill for my problem, after all, debugging works fine provided I'm not doing it on this different hostname. They talk about doing things that I would do if debugging did not work at all even with http://localhost/.
Is there a place where I can just add this new hostname so that VS debugging is allowed? Do I need to change permissions somewhere? I feel like there should be a really simple solution that I'm just overlooking.
Here's a description of the problem: http://blogs.msdn.com/webdevtools/archive/2008/08/13/debugging-a-website-with-a-host-header.aspx
And here's the recommended registry workaround: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896861
Do yourself a favour and download IIS Admin .NET.
This handy little tool allows you to switch between your websites at a snip - each one will become localhost when activated, and crucially, get you out of this debug debacle.
http://www.codeplex.com/iisadmin
You do have to add the hostname to a value within the registry.. but I can't remember where.
Since you can only have one website running at a time, why don't you just have them all running as 'localhost'? This way you don't have to change any annoying registry settings but you still have your applications running in individual IIS Websites.
When I used to use IIS 6 (or so) I'd often make a virtual directory on my local dev machine that pointed to the production assets/content directory(s). That way I could see all the most up to date content off production, without having to FTP it down from the production server.
Now I'm trying to do it in IIS 7 and can't see it.
Does anyone know how to do this?
Or has it been removed and I should use the IIS rewriter module?
Thanks in advance everyone!
-Evan
Ah man. This is so annoying, I don't think it's actually possible.
My conclusion is that this functionality was lost in IIS7. In my .net apps I use the rewriter in the web.config to achieve this result.
I've found that on some occasions I can edit the source while debugging. Are there any other advantages of using the Visual Studio built-in webserver instead of a virtual directory in IIS?
I'm using Windows XP on my development environment, and a local instance of IIS 5. I work on several projects, so I use multiple virtual directories to manage all the different sites.
Are there any disadvantages?
The built-in web server for Visual Studio is called Cassini and here are a few of its limitations...
It can host only one ASP.NET
application per port.
It does not support HTTPS.
It does not support authentication.
It responds only to localhost
requests.
It is slow startup compared to IIS
All the previous responses are great answers - here's one gottcha with Cassini that might require IIS on the destkop.
Cassini runs in the context of the developer, not as the IIS user (IUSR_, IWAM, or in WinXP x64, the w3wp process). This can be a bit painful if you've got a web site that is accessing external files or creating temp files. It is most evident when your developer is running as an Admin of their desktop.
When you move to the server IIS, something that you would have had access to in Cassini doesn't work the same. CACLing with the IIS_WPG usually is all it takes to fix, but if your developer is not thinking about this, they will quickly get quite frustrated with their deploy.
Cassini does not support virtual directories.
It looks like a third option is coming soon:
IIS Express.
Another disadvantage I've run into is on a Forms authenticated website using custom IPrincipal/IIdentity. Cassini will switch the AppDomains without warning (or notice).
Check this blog post for more.The headache on this made me drop Cassini and stick with IIS.
The Visual Studio web server is less forgiving about // in the path.
It will refuse to serve a link like
http://localhost:52632/main//images/logo.jpg where IIS will do.
That's pretty obscure, but it means we have a lot of fixing to do to get rid of all the // occurrences.
The built-in server works well for larger corporations that don't want to give developers any administrator access on their own machines to configure IIS.
There's a bug in the way the built-in server handles HTTPModules - there is a workaround, but I hate having to put in code that'll never be needed in production.
You need to have Visual Studio running to use it (under normal circumstances)
It only responds to localhost, so you can't give the link http://simon-laptop:37473/app1 to a friend to view your site over the network
Big disadvantage: it's harder to get fiddler working, because localhost traffic isn't sent through the proxy.
Using http://ipv4.fiddler:37473 is the best way to get Fiddler working with it.
You cant use virtual directories :(
Cassini also does not support ASP Classic pages. This is only an issue for legacy projects where old ASP Classic pages still exist (like our web application at work).
The built-in server means the developer doesn't have to know how to set up IIS to test their site.
You could argue this is a disadvantage, and that a Windows developer should know at least that much IIS. Or you could argue that a developer who isn't a system administrator shouldn't be messing around with the web server at all.
If you 'web reference' the URL for web services that are on the built-in webserver, the port might change. Unless you have set a "Specific port" mentioned in menu Project → Properties options page.
This is something I've gotten used to now. I always set a specific port. Now when sometimes the webserver crashes (I've had that happen), I simply change the port number, and all is well. I reckon restarting will also fix this.
If you do hobby work at home using XP Home, you can't install IIS locally.
When you use IIS in Vista or Windows 7 with UAC enabled, you must run Visual Studio with administrative rights. If you do this, you can't drag an drop from your shell to Visual Studio (even if you run an instance of explorer.exe as administrator).
For this reason I use Cassini for most projects.
FYI, Windows XP 64-bit comes with IIS 6.
This is an old thread started 2 years ago. I just stumbled upon UtilDev Cassini while googling. Looks promising to me. At least it has the ability to run multiple sites simultaneously. That feature is really useful for me, because I work on 2 different sites and have to continuously switch between them using IIS.
Here's a reason for a third way: although UWS Pro is probably closer to IIS than Cassini (although inspired by Cassini and is from the vendor of the UltiDev Cassini fork), its main purpose is to be redistributable along with ASP.NET applications.
Cassini is meant to be a lightweight test webserver. The idea is that a developer does not need to have IIS installed and configured to test his/her application.
Use IIS if you are familiar with it and you have it set up and your box can handle it. Cassini is not meant to be a replacement.
I often take the best of both worlds and create an application in IIS, and use the built-in web server for more efficient debugging.
The built-in server isn't as configurable, and it runs on an odd port, so if you're counting on specific behavior it can be troublesome.
Install IISAdmin, and you can setup separate sites in IIS 5, instead of using virtual directories.
The built-in webserver is a little less robust than IIS, but requires no setup so it is just a tradeoff.
You may not always want your development projects exposed on your IIS server (even your local IIS server) so the built-in server is good for that.
However, if your application is going to access resources outside of the norm for a web app then you may want to debug frequently in IIS so that your app will run with restricted permissions and you can see where the pain points will be.
One difference I've found is that the development server handles uploading files differently than IIS does. You can't trap the error if the file being uploaded is bigger than your Max_File_Size setting. The page just dies and returns a 500.
Another dis-advantage is that it sends every request through the gloabal asax file which includes all requests for images and stylesheets. This means if you have code in there which does things with the file names, such as a look up, then the auxillary files willget processed too.
Also via IIS, you don't have to worry about automatically remembering and setting a stupid port number in your localhost url. That's something funky directly relied upon with Cassini...big pain in the ass. Who wants to remember some abritrary port number. Just run the damn site in IIS..plain and simple.
We've also seen some issues with Visual Studio built-in server regarding some third-party controls which put their scripts in the \aspnet_client folder.
Since the folder isn't there when you're not running under IIS, the controls didn't work. It seems a lot simpler to always work with IIS and avoid strange problems.
If your project resides in the IIS directory you can still edit code. It just depends if it has been published or not.
You will run into so many issues on the Cassini vs. IIS when you are debugging certain permission based scenarios, like Kerberos and NTLM authentication as well as issues like server compression, etc. All in all, the Cassini is still okay to develop with, but make sure you do extensive testing when publishing to IIS.
Currently our dev team set up all the websites they're working on in IIS on their local machine. We're thinking of switching to using the built in ASP.NET development server instead.
Is this a good idea? What are the pros / cons of using the ASP.NET dev Server? Are there any gotchas we should be aware of?
Thanks.
NB: Running on Win XP / IIS 5 / VS2005
Edit:
Didn't realise it was called Cassini.. More answers for Cassini v IIS here.
There is nothing that the ASP.NET Dev WebService can do that IIS can't (You can set breakpoints etc, just attach the VS debugger to the ASP.NET runtime).
However, the ASP.NET Dev WebService does not represent a true production environment, and as such you can get caught by gotchas that you wouldn't expect when you deploy to production.
Because of that, I mandate that all development is done using IIS on a local machine. It doesn't take much work to configure a site in IIS.
It's a very good idea. Here are some reasons for:
You no longer need admin access to your machine for web development (it can still be helpful).
It's much easier to test a quick change and continue work, and faster iteration cycles are good.
It can simplify setup and deployment of your development environments.
The XP version of IIS has limitation that are not present in the Server version that Cassini side-steps.
The only argument I know against is that there are a couple very rare edge cases where the Cassini built-in server doesn't exactly mimic IIS because you're using odd port numbers. I doubt you'll ever run into them, and using Cassini as the primary dev environment does not preclude developers from also having access to IIS on the machine. In fact, my preferred setup is Cassini first for most small work, then deploy to my local IIS for more in-depth testing before moving code back to the shared source repository.
[Edit]
Forgot about url re-writing. You do need IIS for that. And an example of a limitation of the built-in XP IIS is that you are limited to one site in XP (can have multiple applications, but that's a different thing).
I had to switch (back) to IIS for one project, because I needed to set some virtual directories which is not possible on the ASP.NET Development Web Server.
As I stated here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/103785/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-using-cassini-instead-of-iis your developers need to be aware that Cassini runs as the local user, which is typically an admin account for developers. The development will be able to access any file or resource that their account can, which is quite different from what they will see on an IIS 6 server.
The other thing that's a pretty big gotcha is debugging web services is much easier using IIS and vdirs rather than separate Cassini instances.
I know at one point I had an issue with Authentication not working as expected on Cassini (built in development server)
Also, if you need to test things like ISAPI plugins (a re-writer for example) I'm not sure how that's done on Cassini.
The constantly changing port is also rather disconcerting to me. Also, for each web project in your solution it fires up another instance of a Casini server, and each one takes anywhere from 20 to 50 MB of memory.
I use IIS all the time, it's pretty easy to setup, and you guys are already doing that...
I've used both methods and I prefer having IIS locally vs. using the built-in server. At very least you're more consistent with the final deployment setup.
Also, when using IIS 5.1, be sure to get JetStat IIS Admin, it adds functionality that is disabled out of the box on IIS 5, such as being able to setup multiple sites.
I have run into the following limitations with the asp.net dev server:
does not support virtual dirs. If you need them in your app, IIS seems to be your only choice
Classic asp pages dont run in dev server. So if you have a mixed web app (like I have at my client right now), IIS seems to be the solution
If you need an admin UI to configure settings, IIS works better
Of course IIS requires that you be a local admin.
Another distinction I noticed is that Cassini runs as a 32-bit process and you have no control over it, whereas you can control the application pool of your IIS app to disallow 32-bit (assuming your IIS is running on a 64-bit server). This becomes especially important if your web application is going to call APIs in 64-bit processes such as SharePoint Foundation/Server 2010. When you debug your web app with Cassini as your debug server, you'll get "The Web application at url could not be found. Verify that you have typed the URL correctly" type errors when instantiating objects. If you debug using IIS with the app running in an app pool that runs as 64-bit with an identity that allows access to sharepoint database then you'll be able to debug properly.
In VS12 the development server is way slow, takes a few seconds to download a 2kbyte file. This did not happen in vs10. When you have a bunch of jquery files and css this is a real problem. Also every page requeries all the css/js files. Very very slow regression testing.
The main issue I've run into with the dev server is SerializationExceptions with custom security principals stored on the thread context. Details here.