What would be a good way to collaborate with web designers (proficient in CSS and HTML) in an ASP.NET project, while at the same keeping everything in sync using SVN?
We don't want the compiled DLLs (i.e the "bin" folder) in the source repository (not in the trunk anyway)
We don't to require that the designers have Visual Studio or a working build environment
We want the designers to be able to run the site (locally or remotely)
We want the designers' changes to be synced with the SVN trunk
(we have a build server running TeamCity, so some kind of automation process is possible)
Given this comment:
Yes, but the compiled application is not available in the trunk and we don't want the designers to have to do the compilation
Then I think your best solution is to use Continuous Integration, so that you can have a system that builds the site/application hourly/daily/however often, and then any "non-technical" resources (meaning those resources who aren't capable or who do you don't want to have to compile local builds) have a bleeding-edge version of the site that they can access at any time.
CI alone won't solve the problem of having your designers be able to test their changes against the "current development site" - perhaps you can have the CI build script build and publish a zip or a deployable version of the site that the designers can then download and run to be able to make changes to certain page/files etc?
There are a good number of questions related to CI here on stackoverflow, Continuous Integration Servers has a good discussion of recommendations for specific servers.
get them in the same room...
thats by far the best to do.
they should be the same "team"
otherwise, use .net MVC and let them design the .aspx files.
design with your architect the concept (of pages/master/controls)
you do not need to publish/compile web projects.
you can also copy the complete source.
so they can work on that.
ASP.NET with WebForms is pretty darn hard for designers to work with since ASPXes are trying to be too smart, which is not what's required. I mean, look at DataGrid: it's a real mess, with even messier HTML output. No designer will ever agree to use some weird properties like Font.Overline = true instead of true old CSS. And if you decide against all that fancy controls in favor of a simple Repeater, there's not much of WebForms left relly. Which brings is to...
ASP.NET MVC, which is way better both in terms of OOP design, and in terms of graphical/informational design.
Related
Good day
I moved to another company from a previous one, they task me to modify a existing system with a horrific code, but with patience and dedication, I managed to update the system, but I was shocked that they told me to put the source code on the system and it will be the one that the app in IIS will read. It will read the debug folder of the project. On my previous employer what we do is to publish the file, and that be one to read, but on my current employer,they put the whole source code on the web server.
Is this okay? Or am I right it's a bad practice, well other frameworks put the whole file on the server, so it should be good? Is it?
Thanks and regards
As pointed out, this was a common set.
And after all, why bother to do some whole big publish when you JUST need to modify say a bit of markup in a web page.
So, for those who have the web server "on site", then often they would point VS to the site, and open it directly.
So, to manage/use/work with such a project?
You don't use from vs file->open project, but in fact use file->open web site. At this point, it is assumed you browse directly to the folder that holds the web site - often the live web site.
There are several significant issues to be aware of.
the app in IIS will read. It will read the debug folder of the project.
That is a not a correct assumption, or even correct view. There is no such thing as a "debug" folder. Then again, be it a console app, desktop, or whatever? Sure, when you COMPILE code, it goes to the bin/debug or bin/release folder.
But, you failing to grasp that by using the "web site" option, VS does NOT do the code compile!!! (IIS does!!!). While testing in vs, then vs will do the compile, but if you are modifying the web site directly, then all you have to do is open a web page, and when you hit ctrl-s, you are done - it is now live. And this ALSO applies to code behind.
So, you can open up say the code behind page. Modify one line of code and hit ctrl-s - you are done!!!
So, yes, as you note, a lot of web site(s) were managed this way.
So, the upside is no real deployment is required. And for a larger site, this actually can be a benefit.
However, the downsides are significant, and you VERY much need to be aware of these issues.
First up, careful if you adopt Rosyln extensions. That means your testing/debug/playing/developing code using and allowing VS to compile the code.
however, when you deploy (or edit "live"), then VS is NOT doing the code compile anymore. And this ALSO means then that the web site has both aspx pages, and ALSO the source code pages MUST ALSO exist!!! But often the web site and version of IIS will for example not know about Rosyln extensions etc., so you HAVE to be VERY careful, since it not VS that compiles the code, it is IIS that does this!!
In fact EVEN with a web site application, the "app_code" can and will be compiled by IIS. (I had simple code break when IIS re-compiles that code - it was not aware of say free form text strings that Rosylin allows). So, for a web site application, I actually create my own folder called MyCode and for each code module/class inside, then I right click and choose "compile" for the build options. That way IIS NEVER gets to compile my code!!!).
Now, of course the other option is what we call a "asp.net web application".
In that case, when you publish, then the code is compiled for you, the code behind pages is stripped out, and only the aspx pages remain (and are copied/deployed) to the web site. While this is more "pain" since even a tiny one-line change of code requires a WHOLE web site re-compile and re-deploy.
However, while there is this "increased" pain, there are also significant advantages.
You can have multiple projects in the one project.
you can add and reference other projects assemblies - not have to move/copy the assembles into the bin folder.
So, with better skills, then of course you often build code libraries and systems - systems that ALSO the web site requires. So, a asp.net "web site application" is a far better choice (compared to the "asp.net web site").
So, coming from a traditional software background, then hands down, I prefer the ability to have multiple projects in the one and same web project. And hands down I prefer the runtime compiling and management of external libraries of code and references being managed by the vs as opposed to "hoping" you setup and managed references correctly with a web site.
So, even those starting out say with PHP, or many other systems? Yes, they run a web server all the time, and then go edit the source files - and a simple "save" of the file you just edited means then a browser refresh, and you are done.
however, you lose a lot of control over referenced libraries, and KNOWING the build + compile is the same one you be running on the web site after a publish.
And note that a web site publish in effect will be just the SAME copy of the existing web site and files - there not really a "compile" process for publishing, and hence no "debug" folder really exists. It also means that each page launched on the site can out of the blue cause code to compile.
(Whereas with a asp.net web site application, there is a small startup delay the first time - probably due to JIT's running, but other than that, each additional pages and parts of the web site will not then have significant delays. With a web site re-publish, then huge delays can occur (but then again, often you never really have to re-publish do you - you are editing the live files!!). But, if you are working on a test copy, then yes, you are going to re-publish everything (actually copy the files - since nothing more is required). And as such then the web server really will be slow to start up, and slow to open pages that have not yet triggered compile of the code-behind pages (and you get a gazillion little .dll's as a result).
So, the only real issue here?
MAKE SURE you open the web site using file->open web site as opposed to file->open project. In theory and practice, such "web sites" thus don't have a .sln and project file. (it really is just a folder of files). As noted, many love this setup, especially for larger sites, since then little changes here and there are very easy. However, from an overall software management point of view, using git and source code, and things like writing unit test code, shared libraries, using multiple projects in one vs project file? You give up most of this with the web site option. So, yes, that setup is quick and dirty, but it not all that great if you more formalized in your software development approach.
I prefer strong references, and strong typing during the development process. I also prefer having VS manage my references. So, these abilities are worth more than a simple ctrl-s to update some code. However, if some bug crops up, while it can often be fixed by a simple edit of some code file and ctrl-s, and you are done? it will be harder to track down and find that bug in the first place!!!
To be fair, once a code project is created, then changes and fixes are often rather small - and this again actually favors that simple edit and ctrl-s deployment model.
it can often be painful to have to do a full re-publish of a whole big web application for JUST one little, tiny change of code, or even markup. And in most cases, when I deploy, I stop the web server services, publish, and then re-start the IIS web services.
So, it can "often" be hard to make a case that this deployment model (well, it doesn't really have a deployment model!!!) is bad, since it oh so easy to update bits and parts of an existing running site.
However, in the long run, I really can't endorse this way of development. I MUCH prefer using a web application. It is more git friendly, it allows things like testing code (unit testing), far better use of external class and library code, and you have a MUCH better control of compile and build of your code. Letting IIS compile the code base has increased risk, since you can't be sure during development that your final code and project will run the same when you deploy. (or least be far surer!).
It would be a history lesson.
More than two decades when Microsoft designed ASP.NET 1.0, the developers were using classic ASP which is simply Visual Basic code running on IIS. Thus, ASP.NET 1.0 has the mode of "ASP.NET Web Site" (used by your current employer) that you put source code on IIS and compile on the fly to mimic classic ASP.
It was after a few more years that Microsoft realized how bad that mode is, and introduced "ASP.NET Web Application" mode (used by your previous employer).
Microsoft has urged "ASP.NET Web Site" projects to be migrated to "ASP.NET Web Application" (or simply ASP.NET Core) for more than a decade, but unless IIS stops supporting those projects, many will not migrate at all.
"Is it okay" is impossible to be answered. Your current employer seems to enjoy that very well.
Reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASP.NET_Web_Forms
Is it good practice to have a production (live) asp.net website that is also a working copy to push updates?
In general this is considered bad practice primarily because the source control repository contains the source whereas the production application contains the result. The two are kept separate for a number of reasons:
Security. If your source is on your production server, it's at risk of being viewed. Maybe this is a problem, maybe it's not. The safe approach is to just not have the source on the production server.
Performance. The result of building the source can be optimized for performance in ways that the source itself generally isn't. In a .NET application, for example, the production deployment doesn't contain debugging symbols. This may not be an issue in your particular application, but it's something to consider.
Multiple Results. Is your source an actual application, or is it information used to build an application? Can multiple versions be built? For example, in a .NET web application, you might have Web.config transforms. These are used at deploy-time to adjust the result of building the source. If the source itself is being used as the live application, these deploy-time modifications aren't available.
Others may be able to articulate this much better than I can, but in general it is considered bad practice, yes. Your particular application may be an exception to any particular reason or may not be meaningfully affected by any particular reason, so I stress the "in general" part.
Depending on the layout of your project, there may be some security concerns. For instance, if you have a .txt file with some sensitive information, keep in mind that it will accessible in your site.
Anything in App_Code or any .cs, .vb, .config, etc files will not be served by ASP.NET, so you can put stuff you don't want people seeing there.
Also, for initial loading performance, you should precompile your site via the VS Publish command or the Web Deployment Project addin (assuming you're working with a web site project). You could create an svn branch for the precompiled, deployable code and use that branch on your server.
You can use services like http://springloops.io or http://deployhq.com to only push certain folders to a server. That gives you a lot of flexibility in pushing code to deployment.
We have been a ColdFusion shop for 10 years, and are now switching over to ASP.net MVC. Our target framework is .net 4.0 BETA 2 using VS 2010 BETA 2. We set up two instances of Windows Server 2008 (staging and production), and will be using our existing database server (SQL Server 2008).
None of us really have much experience in ASP.net itself, though we are all very comfortable in C# and the MVC pattern. The coding itself isn't much of an issue; but the deployment process is. Our goal is to be able to have a CI setup that will automatically pull down, and test, our applications into staging on commit - then have the option to tag, then switch, the checkouts on our production sites when websites pass QA.
Some of the things I'm having issues with here is the concept of an ASP.net application and how it integrates into SVN. CF, like PHP or RoR, are all scripting languages and as such require no build process (checking out the source into production is very straightforward). But in this case, applications need to be compiled - which is where we start to have problems. Will we need to create another server (or use an existing one) that has some sort of application that pulls down code, compiles it, then somehow pushes it on the live servers? If so, what is considered the best way to accomplish this? I imagine if we end up using a build tool such as Nant, adding additional steps to migrate the database would be trivial, but what is the best way to accomplish this as well?
Another, slightly unrelated, problem is how our designers will work with our code. Most of them are on Macs, and using VS isn't much of an option. How will they be able to edit the aspx, css and image files easily? Our goal is to make this as transparent as possible to them.
We have done a lot of shopping around, and ASP.net MVC seems to be the best option as far as our familiarity with the language, and our current platform. We just need to figure out a good build process so everything is as transparent as possible. I understand there are a ton of resources available on this, but I wanted to get the opinions of the people here from first-hand experience.
Microsoft TFS has a wonderful build solution built-in. It's costly, but effective. In addition, you cannot lose by looking at CruiseControl, which is free. TeamCity from JetBrains is also a great option. All of these Continuous Build and Integration solutions would provide a good starting point for your research.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/dd408382.aspx
http://www.cruisecontrol.com/
http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/
Even Draco.net is a good consideration:
http://draconet.sourceforge.net/
We use http://www.cruisecontrol.com/ (CC) running on our SVN / Build server. You can configure CC via it's own config/script files to pull down the latest source from SVN and then spawn one or more Nant or MSBuild scripts which can perform your build and deployment.
We script all of our database changes into change scripts which also go into SVN. We then have a custom command line tool which will deploy the change scripts to SQL Server during the web site deployment. All of that is done in the Nant script.
So each project's Nant script handles the build, web site deployment and SQL change script deployment.
The tricky part is handling rollbacks if/when something goes horribly wrong. I would suggest posting another question for that specific problem.
I have looked through the related questions, and none of them have provided me the information I am looking for.
Currently the team I work on does deployments of individual .aspx (and .aspx.vb) files for bug fixes/enhancments. I am trying to affect change, as I really believe that deploying the "whole compiled site" is less error prone. As this is a significant change from the way things have been done, my suggestions have ben met with significant resistance.
As my google-fu has not been up to par lately, I was hoping the SO community could either tell me that I am off my rocker, and that there is nothing wrong with moving individual files, or point me to some really good resources which would allow me to make a stronger case.
Edit:
This has all been great info, and reinforces the arguments that I have already been making, can anyone argue the other side?
Deploying individual files for bug fixes and deployment is not a wise strategy. It sounds like you need a comprehensive build and deployment process. That doesn't mean it has to be complicated as there are some good tools available nowadays.
Build and deployment can get detailed, so as a minimum start try taking a look at the Microsoft Web Deployment Tool (http://www.iis.net/extensions/WebDeploymentTool). Install the tool on your build server and install it on your deployment server. Stage your ASP.NET content locally using the Visual Studio Publish command, then use the above tool to synchronize the entire package on the deployment server. I like this approach because it can be completely automated. When doing builds and deployments, aim for complete automation to reduce potential errors.
This is the bare minimum, but you will at least be certain that when specific files are changed, they are ALL synchronized on the deployment server.
Personally to me rolling back immediately is most important. Again website projects are very hard when it comes to track the changes.
you can find a good detailed comparison here. I am reproducing the article here.
1) Deployment. If you need in-place deployment, this model is perfect. However, it's not recommended since you are exposing your logic in clear text. So, anybody who have access to physical server can mess with your code and you never going to notice this. You can try to make precompiled web site, but you going to end up with a lot of dll and almost untouchable aspx files. Microsoft recognized this limitation and released Web Deployment Project tool.
2) You need to keep track of what did you change locally and what did you upload to production server. There are no versioning control. Visual Studio has Web Copy tool, but this tool fails to help. I had to build my own tool, which kept track of changes based on Visual Source Safe.
3) When you hit F5 for debug execution it takes merely 2 minutes to compile and execute whole project. Of course you can attach debugger to existing thread, but this is not an obvious solution.
4) If you ever try to generate controls on a fly you will hit first unsolvable limitation. How to reference other pages and controls. Page and control compilation happens on a per directory basis. On best case you going to get assembly for each directory, in worst each page or control is going to get its own assembly. If you need to reference another page from a control or another page you need to explicitly import it with the #Reference directive.
So for,
customControl = this.LoadControl("~/Controls/CustomUserControl.ascx") as CustomUserControl;
You need,
But what if you want to add something really dynamically and can't put all appropriate #Reference directives? Or What if you are creating server control and it doesn't have ascx file, so you don't have a place for #Reference ? Since each control has it's own assembly, it's almost impossible to do reflection.
Web Application Projects which re-appeared in Visual Studio 2005 SP1. They solves all issues mentioned above.
1) Deployment. You get just one dll per project. You can created redistributable packages and repeatable builds.You can have versioning and build scripts.
2) If you did code behind change you can upload just one dll. If you did aspx change you can upload just aspx change.
3) Execution takes 2-3 sec maximum.
4) Whole project is in one assembly, which helps reference any page or control. Conclusion. For any kind of serious work you should use Web Application Projects. Special thanks to Rick Strahl for his amazing article Compilation and Deployment in ASP.NET 2.0.
I agree with Rich.
Further information:
Deploying your SOURCE code ala the .vb files to the server is a BAD idea. Compile it. Obfuscate if you can, just don't deploy straight source. Imagine an attacker which gains access to the system. They could easily change your code and you might not ever notice. Yes, you can use a tool like reflector to decompile. But it's really hard to decompile a full site, make the changes you want, and put them back into production.
Deploying a single file might very well cause some type of problem in a related module. I'm guessing you guys don't really do QA. Tell them it's time to grow up.
Compiling your site will reduce JIT (just in time) compilation. Think performance.
I'm also going to guess that pretty much everyone has production server access. This is bad from the company's perspective as you have no controls in place. What happens when an employee decides to cause some havoc before leaving?
What you are describing is inline with Cowboy coding. Sure, it's fun to ride to the rescue but this style frequently blows everything up.
It's bad for rolling back. If you deploy as a web site vs web app, yeah you can do quick patches of one or two files, but what if you ever need to roll back to a previous version? Good luck tracking down all the files that were updated to make the new version. I much prefer the concept of a "version" for organizational reasons, and the compiled web app is much more inline with this than a "website" project.
We had this dilemma and ended up going with the compiled version mainly for the security reasons. If your site is external facing you could be compromising your security by allowing the vb files to be out there in plain text. I realize one could still get your code if they really wanted to but it would be an additional hurdle they would need to go through. If you use Visual Studio as your development environment you can publish the site pre-compiled and check the named assemblies option when publishing and this will essentially create a dll for each aspx page so you can do the one off page changes if necessary. This was a great feature we found as we were constantly updating the whole site and there were times when things would get updated that shouldn't. After using that feature we no longer had updates getting pushed that shouldn't. As far as rolling back I hope your using some type of Source control / versioning system. Team Foundation Server is great for versioning/source control but it is quite pricey.
What is the best deployment strategy depends a lot on what kind of environment you are working in, and what kind of developers you are working with.
Visual artists that started with graphic layout and worked towards programming are much more in tune to individual page generation and release. Also the .aspx.vb files are simply server side scripting, not really programming.
Programmers usually start at the command line and branch out to environments such as the web and understandably feel that good programming practices should be applied too the web, including standard test and release cycles (and compiled code).
If the site is in constant flux the individual pages would make more sense, but if you are required to deliver an installation package to your production group msi files are the way to go, since they can be easily backed out if necessary.
If you evaluate what your groups needs are, which includes the varied experience of everyone in your group, you should be able to convince either yourself or the group. This is not a matter of which is better, but which provides the best business model.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
ASP.NET: Web Site or Web Application?
I have noticed that there is clearly a difference in what you get when you fire up Visual Studio 2008 and choose 'New Project' -> 'ASP.NET Web Application' instead of 'New Web Site' -> 'ASP.NET Web Site'. For example if you choose 'Project', then you can compile to .dll and each page gets a *.aspx.designer.cs codebehind file.
1) Why do we have these two different project types?
2) Which do you prefer?
3) Why would I choose one over the other?
4) What's the deal with the *.aspx.designer.cs files?
They have different purposes.
A website is a site with content that is likely to change over time, that is the pages themselves will change. There is no actual project file and the site is deployed simply as a set of files.
An application is a site where the content is just the application, the dynamic part will mainly be in persistant store such as a database. It will have more complex logic since its likely to represent a set of forms for data entry as much as a means to examine content. It has a project file to more strictly control its configuration and its code deployed as a compiled dll.
1) The 'web site' model was introduced with ASP.NET 2.0, the 'web application' model was the project type of the original .net framework. They both have different uses (see below).
2) It depends on the context. A good example is if you are selling a software product, you may wish to use a 'web application' project because it naturally lends itself to cleanly compiled code.
3) See above, personal preference, maintenance characteristics. An interesting thing that a 'web site' allows you to do that can get you in a lot of trouble is making arbitrary changes to code-behind (typically a *.cs or *.vb) file in notepad while the website is running.
4) The designer.cs file is used to store the auto-generated code. "This code was generated by a tool."
MSDN Article describing the differences
Similar stackoverflow question
I won't duplicate the definition of the 2, since that just got answered.
So why use one over the other?
Web Site lets you treat it like a PHP or classic ASP site, where you can make inline changes that take effect immediately.
Pros
You can make tweaks to the site right on the web server
Deploying is as simple as copying the folder
Cons
If you are not making the changes right on the live site, you can get into change management problems, where you forget to keep all your files in sync
You can get runtime syntax errors displayed to your end users, since the only way to check is to manually run every page
Web Application lets you treat it more like how you would a desktop application - there is one deployable that is compiled on your machine.
Pros
Clear, structured change management. You cannot accidently mix code from two different versions. This can be important when there are 2 people involved - one writing the code, and one responsible for putting files on the server.
Because you compile it on your machine, everything gets syntax checked at that point*
Cons
Deployment is a little more involved then just copying the folder from your development machine. However the usage of the "Publish" command greatly simplifies the process of compiling and putting together what files should be copied to the web server.
Any changes need to be done on your machine, compiled, and a whole new version sent to the web server*
*The aspx/html files are only syntax checked if you turn this on in your build options though. It is also possible to edit these files on the server unless they are compiled into your project.
The simple answers are as follows:
New Web Site - creates code behind pages that are compiled at the server when page is requested.
New Web Project - creates pre-compiled pages into one or more assemblies (entire site even), and deployed on server.
Scenario #1 - If a hacker obtains your code-behind files, any database passwords are exposed. These pages are compiled at the time they are requested. You can choose to pre-compile everything into a large assembly. If not, there is more load on the server.
Scenario #2 - if a hacker obtains your assemblies, they will be obfuscated. Obfuscated assemblies are harder to crack. These assemblies are pre-compiled, thus reducing load on the server.
For more information:
Introduction to Web Application Projects
3) WebApplication projects are buildable by MSBuild. WebSites are not (without a lot of tweaking). If you use TeamSystem with automated builds then this is the way to go.
THe biggest difference that no one has really mentioned (except touched on by Annakata) is that with the model where everything is compiled into a single DLL, your have complete control over the classes that your application generates. You know where they are and can always reference them from anywhere else in the application.
With the single page model, you can't do this. You have to get around it by creating "stub" classes in the AppCode directory, and inheriting those in your pages, but even that isn't ideal, and add complexity.
You'll only really come up agaist this stuff if you're trying to develop an intricate dynamic site, where you dynamically load lots of user-controls at run-time based on content. Then, the differences are painfully clear - hence much of our development stalled on ASP 1.1 until we could go back to the same model later.
Nich
Speaking from experience with both: "Web Sites" are used where there is no testing methodology in place, no CI server, and a culture that encourages and promotes "hotfixes" to specific pages regularly. "Web Applications" are the de facto standard where proper software methodologies are followed and there is unit testing (if not full TDD) and a CI server with a focus on writing clean code and finding bugs before the need for a "hotfix" arises.
Sites are the 2003 original .NET way of doing web dev. In my experience they are extremely problematic since lacking a project definition they can't be reused and have issues with modular coding, have issues with TeamSystem integration and namespacing. The one-to-one bind with a domain and lack of real publishing abstraction creates maintenance problems down the line.
The ancient "classic" ASP way of !codebehind is a serious problem because it again impairs code reuse and testing, and the often cited benefits of allowing hot fixes - if ever called upon - is actually a massive signal that you have a failing development process. The ability to hot fix is of course better than not being able to, but it's something you never want to invoke.
You might say that the problems with the web site model were great enough that MS gave us web apps instead. Personally I would never use them for anything beyond demo code... no actually I wouldn't even do that.
At first there was a Web application project (it behaved similarly to the current Web site project). They changed it to reflect what some users requested. However people wanted the old functionality back so they re-introduced the Web site project which behaves like the original Web application project.
I -- and my workplace -- prefer the Web site project
We like that the files of the website are the files in the file system (no need to add them manually)
No idea
Here's two articles I found about both:
http://damieng.com/blog/2008/02/07/web-site-vs-web-application
http://www.dotnetspider.com/resources/1520-Difference-between-web-site-web-application.aspx
Note: A lot of the issues with Web sites have been resolved with the Web deployment project
Update: Fixed the point 1, Web application was there first
If your work needs to leverage oo language features (class hierarchies, namespaces) or if you need to reuse common code among projects (data access, class libs etc.) then the web application project is the only way to go.
The website project (the clue is in the name) is only really good for non-complex 'brochureware' sites (where the pages consist of static content) as opposed to web applications.
There is very little difference, and I would highly recommend using the Web Site model.
The main difference is for a website, some files need to be placed in certain directories (code files need to be placed in the 'App_Code' directory), besides that, it's pretty straight forward.
If having compiled code for deployment is important to you, and you want a single DLL (opposed to the several that are created when you do a normal publish for a web site), then you'll want to get this add-on: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336619.aspx