ASP.NET web application vs ASP.NET website
-
OK, to begin short: The website won this battle. I've tried very hard using the web application project Microsoft offers for ASP.NET 2.0, but it just doesn't work as easy as I would like it to work. Some options are missing and others don't work correctly, because of the fact that Microsoft effectively introduced the old 1.1 model of compilation back into the game. For example: The profile class isn't generated anymore, also I got problems that the application doesn't keep the sessionstate alive for some odd reason. With a website project I didn't have that problem. (Yep, I even recreated the project as a website and as a web application) I don't know how many of you use the web application project, but I don't recommend it to anyone. Instead you can make your website on your computer, precompile it and then deploy it. Works way better and is easier too.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
-
OK, to begin short: The website won this battle. I've tried very hard using the web application project Microsoft offers for ASP.NET 2.0, but it just doesn't work as easy as I would like it to work. Some options are missing and others don't work correctly, because of the fact that Microsoft effectively introduced the old 1.1 model of compilation back into the game. For example: The profile class isn't generated anymore, also I got problems that the application doesn't keep the sessionstate alive for some odd reason. With a website project I didn't have that problem. (Yep, I even recreated the project as a website and as a web application) I don't know how many of you use the web application project, but I don't recommend it to anyone. Instead you can make your website on your computer, precompile it and then deploy it. Works way better and is easier too.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
Ever tried the non-WAP website on source control? You will change you mind fast :)
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
-
OK, to begin short: The website won this battle. I've tried very hard using the web application project Microsoft offers for ASP.NET 2.0, but it just doesn't work as easy as I would like it to work. Some options are missing and others don't work correctly, because of the fact that Microsoft effectively introduced the old 1.1 model of compilation back into the game. For example: The profile class isn't generated anymore, also I got problems that the application doesn't keep the sessionstate alive for some odd reason. With a website project I didn't have that problem. (Yep, I even recreated the project as a website and as a web application) I don't know how many of you use the web application project, but I don't recommend it to anyone. Instead you can make your website on your computer, precompile it and then deploy it. Works way better and is easier too.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
I've been researching this a bit too, and definitely prefer the website option, but I'm still unclear on how it scales to bigger applications. This blog helped a little bit, but looking at the comments, it's a touchy issue (what isn't these days...): http://blogs.vertigo.com/personal/swarren/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=10[^]
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
Ever tried the non-WAP website on source control? You will change you mind fast :)
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
I read that too. Can you tell us what problems have you encountered with source control?
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
I read that too. Can you tell us what problems have you encountered with source control?
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
Just try it!!! I cant explain what was going thru designer mind when he/she decided that approach!
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
-
Just try it!!! I cant explain what was going thru designer mind when he/she decided that approach!
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
I'm scared! :-D
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
OK, to begin short: The website won this battle. I've tried very hard using the web application project Microsoft offers for ASP.NET 2.0, but it just doesn't work as easy as I would like it to work. Some options are missing and others don't work correctly, because of the fact that Microsoft effectively introduced the old 1.1 model of compilation back into the game. For example: The profile class isn't generated anymore, also I got problems that the application doesn't keep the sessionstate alive for some odd reason. With a website project I didn't have that problem. (Yep, I even recreated the project as a website and as a web application) I don't know how many of you use the web application project, but I don't recommend it to anyone. Instead you can make your website on your computer, precompile it and then deploy it. Works way better and is easier too.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
Yep - we tried to use Web Applications and gave up. It should not be that hard.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Ever tried the non-WAP website on source control? You will change you mind fast :)
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
Most of my colleagues use sourcesafe or team foundation server and I haven't heard any complaints yet. But I have yet to try that out myself. It's on my todo list, but the list is way to long at the moment.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
