|
.net
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
how to upgrade existing ASP NET applicationsI've done a little reading and haven't come across any clean solution for the
subject. Does anyone have any ideas on how to achieve the same. Requirements- - Upgrade existing ASP.NET applications - distribute only modified files - if files have been modified at client side (then they may need to be left as they are). Eg Config file. hello Don
not sure if this is what you meant but anyways ... if you're talking about 1.1 apps running in 2.0, then there really is no cause for concern as any ASP.NET 1.1 app will run AS IS on 2.0 UNMODIFIED. my entire site is an example. All demos were initially written for 1.1, but I did not have to do any change for them to run in 2.0. The only change needed is in the IIS configuration, to specify which ASP.NET version the app will use. in my case, when I switched to 2.0, everything still worked. Don wrote:
> I've done a little reading and haven't come across any clean solution ASP.NET doesn't have any files at the client side.> for the subject. > Does anyone have any ideas on how to achieve the same. > > Requirements- > - Upgrade existing ASP.NET applications > - distribute only modified files > - if files have been modified at client side (then they may need to > be left as they are). Eg Config file. I think you are confusing something here... -- Riki Hi Don,
Show quoteHide quote "Don" <D**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message The reason why you haven't heard much about this is because the practice is news:3C0B9010-F329-4C88-BFB5-160C3679730C@microsoft.com... > I've done a little reading and haven't come across any clean solution for > the > subject. > Does anyone have any ideas on how to achieve the same. > > Requirements- > - Upgrade existing ASP.NET applications > - distribute only modified files > - if files have been modified at client side (then they may need to be > left > as they are). Eg Config file. > fairly dangerous. The nature of ASP.Net is that seperate files deliver seperate capabilities. Each file may have a connection to a DLL and it is all declarative. Files also inherit the security settings in the web.config. This means that a single file, placed on a site, becomes part of the site. When you send an update to an ASP.Net web site and you only update the changed files, you are saying that you have relinquished control over the contents of the site... you will only change things that YOU delivered. If someone else put a file on that site, you won't modify it. Perhaps that is your intent. Perhaps you wish to allow a customer to upgrade their site by adding pages. If so, isolate their pages from yours in a subfolder. Have your code knowingly look to that subfolder for extensions to the site. Then, when you update the site, you are updating all of the files in the main folder(s) while leaving the subfolder untouched. Also, if you are just trying to save the amount of space involved in a CAB file... that's usually not a good pay-off in the long run from a maintenance standpoint. In other words, you are likely to create more cost in bug fixes than you will save in time and transmission costs, especially since CAB files are compressed rather well. I hope this helps, -- --- Nick Malik [Microsoft] MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not representative of my employer. I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a programmer helping programmers. --
Other interesting topics
old with the new, forms...
ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptBlock in ASP.NET 2.0 ODP.NET migration Quotes within Response.Write, Please help? Passing Data Between Forms Presentation layer depends on ???? I need a Server.MapPath advice How to set visibility of a control in DataList template? Getting a Profile Value! ImageURL |
|||||||||||||||||||||||