Good evening/morning/after/noon.
I have an ASP.net 3.5 website and I am using vb.net in VWD 2008 Express, I am also using MS SQL Server 2008 Express, I used ajax tabs and a textBox characters counter control developed by https://web.archive.org/web/20211020202742/https://www.4guysfromrolla.com/ The database is attached with MS SQL Server Management Studio Express and the files are stored in the SQL default "Data" folder.
The whole project's code and forms are stored in a folder in my E drive. I need to hand the whole project to another coworker who have to finish it, please describe in steps how can i make my website portable (like i can put it all in a folder that he can carry around in his flash disk).
One more thing, I already finished my side of the project, I need to ship it out to this other programmer.
Can anyone suggest something like a: Checklist or Must Do list to achieve this?
PS: I have had a problem trying to move the project from one server to the other, the project seems to look for the dlls of the AJAX control and the textBox counter where i originally unzipped the folders in which they cam in, which i think was on my desktop, although when i added those controls to the Tools tab, i created a new tab, then i choose the dll from the where i unzipped the controls source code, aint that enough?
Thanks in advance
I use the following folder structure for all my solutions
solution
docs
libs
scripts
sql
src
docs - contains all documentation
libs - contains all non GAC'ed framework dlls that the solution uses. You should copy the dlls in here first then reference them this way they are a relivive reference from the src folder.
scripts - build scripts for designers who don't have VS installed and the build server
sql - all sql scripts for creating your database
src - all source for the solution we break this folder up into the following file/folder structure
solution.sln
project1
project2
website1
website2
etc
Now when you copy the solution folder everything is relative so will work.
I'd advise that you add your project to source control, I'd recommend Subversion/SVN and the TortoiseSVN client
Related
How to make a build in VS 2010 within an ASP.NET MVC application that would remove all of the source code (CS and VB) files? When I build a website or web app I usually copy the contents of the entire solution to the hosting server. Mostly clients get the source but sometimes I do not want to expose the source to the hosting server thus only the Public (or Content) folder, views, masters and the built DLL should be copied.
Manual solutions are not applicable. What do you guys use?
Click Publish from the Build menu, then select File System and deploy into a folder. The contents of that folder should have all the stuff you want and nothing more.
You can add del commands to the post-build script. (Perhaps wrapped up in a batch file)
You can even write a C# program that deletes the files, then run that in the post-build script.
this is likely a naive question, but I want to do this right the first time.
I have a MVC solution which has the following:
Data project - C#
Services project - C#
MVC Web Project - ASP.NET MVC
Test Project
Currently, I am using the MVC2 source as a means to debug my own code. I do not plan on checking that in, but I realize once I go back to the MVC2 DLL, my solution will change.
I'm pretty sure I just shouldn't check in stuff that changes with each build: the bin folder on the Web project, for example.
Is there a list of what not to commit to source control? :)
Exclude the bin folder. Also be on the look out for .user or .suo files. Those file store your own settings and will change from user to user so it shouldn't be in source control.
If you're using a database stored in the App_Data folder, be sure to ignore that as well (the database file, not the App_Data folder).
Generally, I exclude the bin and obj folders of every project from source control. I can't remember needing to do anything else.
do you use ankhsvn?
i think ankhsvn automatically exclueds directories which are not needed in subversion
cheers
We have a web portal product from which we customize portals from customers. We use the precompiled web app and create a virtual directory (vd) where the customization resides. In addition to this we do some changes web.config in the web app folder. We would obviously like to keep these customizations under TFS source control.
When I try to add the precompiled web app (which I don't want to add to source control), a warning tells me that the vds cannot be added. If I only add the folder that is referenced to by the vd, I lose the references to assemblies in the precompiled web app.
My questions are:
How do I structure a solution for adding IIS (sub application level) virtual directories and still retain the references to assemblies?
Is it possible to add other directories/files from the web application level (like App_Theme, web.config etc.) to the solution?
Since we already use Visual Source Safe, we have established a tree structure for each customization project:
Project Root
|
|-Custom Sql
|
|-Custom Portal Files (which is added as a virtual directory)
|
|-Other Customizations
I could probably do a lot of this manually through the source control explorer, but I'd like to have everything done through a solution.
I've followed the instructions using this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb668986.aspx, but this doesn't address the exact problem that I have. Oh, and we are currently using Visual Source Safe for portal customizaton, but are eager to make the move to TFS.
TIA
Your issue with virtual directories has nothing to do with source control because virtual directories are not sources. You'll need some sort of script to create the virtual directories on the target system, and populate them with files.
You might store the content files in source control.
The answer is: You can and you can't. That is, if you add the precompiled web application to a solution and then add the physical path to the virtual directory you get partial support for TFS source control in your solution. Posted the question at the MSDN forums and got an answer there.
I have created my first website using asp.net 3.5 .
I have used App_Code for managing my source code files.
Now, after completion:
List item
What needs to be uploaded to the server ?
Do uploading all file including webforms files, source code files make any sense ?
Please provide your own suggestions apart from these.
You should look in to one of these several very good tutorials and articles about deploying ASP.NET applications.
How to Deploy ASP.NET
15 Seconds: Deploying ASP.NET
Deploying ASP.NET Applications on IIS 6
Deploying ASP.NET Applications
Now to your thoughts on what should be uploaded and what not. If you understand the asp.net cycle and how the files are processed by the webserver, it would be easy to know that all files need to be uploaded. But since this is your first application you probably don't have that knowledge.
So, to save you some reading time, Upload everything. In older versions such as 1.1 you had to compile all your source-code into binaries, which you don't have to anymore, but you can, it's up to you.
I However prefere to upload all the files without compiling it to binaries, makes it easier to manage once they are on the server.
The webserver will upon request ( first request ) compile these and then use the compiled files on other requests, this is the short answer anyway, this is why the load-time is longer the first time and the other times it's ( suppose to ) go faster.
Also, worht to know is that if you change the web.config, the application will re-compile.
So just drag n' drop em' to your webb-location and start playing!
If you are using the App_Code folder, it sounds like you are using a web site project type. In this case, the easiest thing to do is just xCopy all of the files up to the webserver. IIS will then do Just In Time compilation (JIT) the first time a page is hit, and will compile your code on the fly.
rgds,
Paul
All content files (i.e. aspx, ascx, asmx, asax, js, css, htm, jpg, gif, png) and DLLs need to be deployed to the server. I recommend using the Visual Studio "Publish..." option on the Build menu to do this for you. It can deploy to a folder (which you can then copy to somewhere else if you like), an FTP site or to an IIS virtual directory.
Uploading your .cs or .vb files is not necessary. It will still work if you do but it's probably safer not to. There's a remote possibility that IIS will have a vulnerability or a sysadmin will make a mistake and your source code will end up being served to the public.
In Visual Studio you could could do File -> New Web Setup Project and build an MSI to do it. This article and This article have more details on this option.
When I use Build->Publish Web Site in Visual Studio 2008, most of the time it compiles the site, and then simply asks me "All files in the target folder will be deleted. Continue?" (or something to that effect). On occasion, however, when publishing a project in Visual Studio, I would get a dialog box that would give me the choice of replacing the folder's contents completely, or simply replacing changed files with newer version.
I much prefer to publish without completely obliterating the folder, because the deployed application creates user files and cache files as it's been used that I don't want to take extra steps to preserve. However, I'm not sure why Visual Studio doesn't always give me this option. Is this a setting somewhere I can change? Is it tied to the version of .NET I'm using?
Any insight is appreciated!
Edit - Followup on 2009-01-20
I still haven't figured this out, but here's some more information.
Here's what the publish function looks like for one ASP.NET project on my Win XP desktop:
And here's what it looks like for a different project on my Vista laptop:
Notice the radio buttons in the second screenshot that allow me to choose to either delete the contents of the folder prior to publishing, or merely to overwrite matching files. I'd like to have these options for every project.
Both computers are running Visual Studio 2008 Professional (version 9.0.30729.1 SP, according to Help->About). The exact same version. And I doubt the OS difference is causing this functionality change. It's got to be a setting somewhere, right? Does anyone know?
John is right, the only difference is one of your projects is a Web Site Project and the other is a Web Application project. You will not see the "convert to web application" option unless you are in a Web Application project. I know... it is very misleading. The reason behind this stems from the the way you convert to a web application project. If you plan on converting it(which can be a real pain in arse, depending on how it is set up) then you need to be aware of a few differences:
In a Web Application project everything is pre-compiled all the codebehind pages will be compiled into a .dll ---- In a Web Site Project nothing in the project is pre-compiled, the compiler will compile everything to ensure it is valid but none of the compiled pages are uploaded. When a user first attempts to access the site each page is compiled into its own dll. This means in a Web Site Project you are able to upload a single codebehind file.
Namespaces - In a Web Application project namespaces are created by default in a Web Site Project they are not. So you may have to spend some time adding them if you plan on converting them.
Project files - you will notice that A Website Project does not have a "cproj" file a Web Application project does.
I have converted a few of these project I find they go fairly smooth as long as there is not a lot of code in the "app_code" folder. You can give it a try and see how easy it is, if it looks like it is going to be a pain, I would suggest FileZilla just FTP it and save yourself some headache.
Good Luck
That dialog is different for Web site projects and Web application projects. In my MVC projects (Web application projects), I see the additional options. In my regular ol' web site projects, I see the first dialog posted.
Not sure if this option will be suitable for you but you could use the copy website function from the solution explorer. Click on the "Copy Website" icon at the top of the solution explorer.
I think the real answer to your question is that you should put your user files and cache files somewhere else.
When publishing a web site Visual Studio is designed to make sure that the target folder contains your web site files, and absolutely nothing else.
Apparently this feature is coming in VS2010 - that's what Vishal Joshi announced at TechEd EMEA in session "PDC307: Microsoft Visual Studio 10: Web Development Futures"
The site has been updated from the site in the updated layer.