I'm working on building a set of ASP.NET (2.0) web-services to be deployed into a single web application under IIS7. The services will be added incrementally (over a period of a year or more) by multiple programmers. How should I organize my source in VS2005.
Should I use one project or several?
Should I use a Web-Application or Web-Site project.
How do I manage the web.config that they will all share.
Thanks for your advice.
Do you use source control now? All of your "control" problems are solved by any decent source control system (i.e., not VSS).
I'd put them into a single project assuming they have code and types in common between them. For instance, if they use the same data access layer and underlying database.
I would never use web site "projects" for web services. Any of their advantages are advantages for web sites made up of web pages, and not for the more complex requirements of web services.
I'll speak to how our shop handles this, which I find to work well.
We use several projects. One for each web service. This allows us to publish one service without effecting the others. We're also on VSS (bleck!) which makes for less conflicts.
We use a Web-Site project and it works fine
We manage the web.config by doing a diff on the file before we publish. The web.config's are something that rarely change
Related
I am new in Asp.net Core and trying to clear my concept on web api. I have basic knowledge on web api. I can do CRUD operation using web api by running that web api project and calling it in other web application project at a time.
My problem is,
I add an web api in a web application project named "Api_BusinessUnit".
How can I call this web api in a controller named "BusinessUnitController" shown in below image. My confusion is, Both are in a same project, I can run one project at a time. So how can I use this web api in "BusinessUnitController" ?
Thanks in advance.
Why do you want to have one Web API call another in the same project? If you need to communicate between parts of your project, you can do so directly without having to over the web, which will be much better from a performance perspective and will be more reliable as well.
That said, looking at your image, I think you have two separate web projects in the same solution which isn't the same thing at all (you may wish to update your question if this is the case). To have one project communicate with the other project, you should determine the URL of the destination project and call it as you are doing. You also will need to ensure both projects are running, of course. You can launch multiple projects at once when you hit F5/ctrl+F5 as shown here:
http://ardalis.com/how-to-start-multiple-projects-in-visual-studio
For me, I am a Scott Allen fan and he explains the project structure for the particular structure you are trying to create here.
https://odetocode.com/blogs/scott/archive/2013/07/01/on-the-coexistence-of-asp-net-mvc-and-webapi.aspx
However, I am a fan of best practices and SoC, so the proper way, IMHO, is to have one solution with multiple projects and either keep the entire solution in version control, or have the project solutions separate, build and deploy to a directory will all of them for testing.
Then the key factor to running MVC and WebApi as different projects in the same solution, besides making sure that Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.Core is installed, is that the start up project is the MVC and the WebApi references that MVC. Then you're off to the races.
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.
I'm new to developing in SharePoint and would like some tips please. I want to develop a WebPart. I understand that I effectively need to do this on a machine with SharePoint Server installed and create the web part as an ASP control. Once the control is created, how do I link it into SharePoint?
I would recommend you to take a look at the WSP Builder extensions for Visual Studio. It will simplify the development and deployment process for you, since it contains both templates for web parts, features and it will also package it up in a WSP solution for you.
I would read though this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms452873.aspx
It will answer a lot of your questions about creating a web part, deploying etc.
If you're using the Microsoft Provided WebPart Visual Studio template...it will automatically be deployed to your site when you build it.
If you need to deploy to a test/production environment, you need to create a SharePoint Feature and then deploy the Feature to the server.
http://www.allaboutmoss.com/index.php/2010/03/22/hello-world-sharepoint-webpart-for-beginners/ helps you to create simple webpart and shows how it deploy in server.
You are able to build Web Parts in a number of different ways, through Visual Studio .NET using either the SharePoint Web Part Namespace or the normal ASP.NET Web Part Namespace further you are able to build Web Parts in SharePoint Designer using a combination of different technologies, such as XML Web Services.
XML Web Services will allow you to hook directly into SharePoint using SharePoint's Native Web Services, you can then create a Data View Web Part which will enable you to view, collate, filter and group List Items. This, of course, will also allow you to mingle normal HTML as well as XSLT syntax, allowing you to build logic into the Web Part.
The good thing about doing it this way is there is no "real' coding, i.e. no Code Behind page etc as there would normally be in ASP.NET. This also allows you keep things more or less SharePoint Centric, which is important because you may or may not have access to Central Admin or SSP nor indeed the Server itself, the 12 hive or the GAC.
How you decide to develop Web Parts should include thinking about all of the above, you may have a very restricted development environment. Further, you can also use Namespaces provided directly from GAC assemblies provided by Sharepoint, you may either need access to a development environment which has a MOSS or WSS Server on it or the PIA's or Assemblies from a MOSS/WSS Server.
I am a software developer, however, it is important for me to develop applications which are as SharePoint centric as they can be, which is why I decided to develop my Web Parts in SharePoint Designer. However, there have been times when using full VS.NET is the way to go, I would suggest you look at SharePoint Designer first, get a feel for the interface, XML Web Services, XSLT and HTML once you have created a SharePoint Designer Web Part and Provided this Web Part exists within a Web Part Zone, you can export the Web Part and reimport it into any number of Site Collections.
I must add that the above relates to SharePoint Lists and Libraries but it gives you a grounding to understand how it all fits together. it helped me understand more and made development of more coded Web Parts easier, It may not suit your individual requirements, SharePoint is a huge environment offering many paths.
Hope this Helps you out, search for SharePoint Designer... at least as a starting point.
Cheers
We have a web site built as an 'ASP.NET Website' type project, rather than the 'ASP.NET Web Application' type.
Aside from the obvious debugging advantages that the app type offers and access to the designer files for each page:
What, if anything, can be gained by switching from website project type to app?
Are there performance losses with one over the other?
How much work is involved in switching an existing (dev) site from website to app? Is it as simple as creating another site as app type and adding these existing aspx files and libraries to it?
This question (How To Convert ASP.NET Website to ASP.NET Web Application) seems to cover the steps.
What are the risks (if any?)
How much work should we plan on?
Are there differences in how HTTP Application deals with requests or how handlers work between the two types?
Anything we forgot to think of?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa730880%28VS.80%29.aspx#wapp_topic5
That describes some of the features and advantages/disadvantages between the two.
The main reason to use the web project versus the web site is that the web site is dynamically compiled which tends to incur a performance hit whereas the web project is precompiled. You should gain performance moving to the web project method. You also gain control over the naming of your final compiled assemblies.
The amount of work really depends on how many pages are in your old site.
I don't think the .NET framework handles code differently in the web site versus the web project. It's really the configuration of the file structure, the lack of a central project file, and the method of compilation that ends up being different between the two.
I am trying to a create an installer for my web application. My solution contains several projects. They include:
Class library project (referenced by the web application)
Web Application
Windows Service
Web Services project
Database project (execute update script)
I also have an unmanaged dll (crystal reports) in my web application project, so I might have to do some editing of the registry.
I ideally want to be able to use a web setup project to install the whole solution. Can this be done? Is there a better method/solution?
The short answer is "Yes" it can be done.
Other better solution? Well, I'm not a huge fan of VS.NET's installer/setup, can be kind of bulky, 3rd parties could be better at a price. Having said that, it should be able to satisfy your requirements.