| Groups | Blog | Home |
asp.net : 1.1 vs 2.0 - Multiple DLLs?
been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding something I was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time ago. I somehow was under the impression that, when compiling an ASP.NET 2.0 app, that multiple dll files were output for the project: one .dll per ASPX page/file. Gone was the day when we could simply compile the project and get a single .dll that we could then move to the production bin folder. But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on 2.0, I'm not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our ASP.NET 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get multiple output dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? Thanks!
Hello Bob,
Use "web deployment project" to control the dll compiling output http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336619.aspx There you can change how your project will be build - with the single dll or with several --- WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP]. My blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour Team blog: http://devkids.blogspot.com/ "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo BJ> I'm finally getting around to migrating a "big" ASP.NET 1.1 app to BJ> 2.0. I've been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding BJ> something I was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time BJ> ago. I somehow was under the impression that, when compiling an BJ> ASP.NET 2.0 app, that multiple dll files were output for the BJ> project: one .dll per ASPX page/file. Gone was the day when we could BJ> simply compile the project and get a single .dll that we could then BJ> move to the production bin folder. BJ> BJ> But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on 2.0, BJ> I'm not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. BJ> BJ> So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our BJ> ASP.NET 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get BJ> multiple output dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? BJ> BJ> Thanks! BJ>
Thank you Mark... so, to cut to the chase on my scenario, is it true (given
what you wrote) that I will need to do the following to get my 1.1 app into 2.0 and get the single-dll-when-compiling experience I had in 1.1? Step 1 - install SP1 for VS 2005 (I have not already done this) Step 2 - open my 1.1 project in VS 2005 and let the conversion wizard take over; converting everything to 2.0. Step 3 - go on with life in the 2.0 world just like I would have in the 1.1 world (i.e, I can keep my carefully planned folder structure without having to migrate it all to App_Code"; compile and get a single dll, etc). Would you expect the above steps to get me where I want to go? Separately, I do understand the option that Mr. Nemtsev presented - but I'd prefer to avoid having to create a deployment project if I can get what I want without creating the deployment project. Thanks -Bob [quoted text, click to view] "Mark Fitzpatrick" <markfitz@fitzme.com> wrote in message news:eR%23Td78vHHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I'm assuming you're using VS to generate the project. VS 2005 SP 1 > introduced the Web Application Project that works very similar to the VS > 2002/3 web project and compiles everything into a single dll. The original > web project, called Web Site Project, that shipped with VS 2005 does have > this behavior. Mainly it uses a different directive to identify the code > seperated from the web page. It uses the CodeFile directive instead of the > CodeBehind. Unfortunatley, this can lead to some problems sharing code > amongst pages if they're in different directories since they don't > necessarily know about eachother. The way around this was the App_Code > directory, which gets compiled first and is available to all pages. The > Web Site Project was a nice idea, but so many people cried foul on it that > MS hurried and created the Web Application Project to give us the same > experience we were used to for 1.x development. > > > -- > Hope this helps, > Mark Fitzpatrick > Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006. 2007 and beyond > > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.COM> wrote in message > news:uGyeSh4vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> I'm finally getting around to migrating a "big" ASP.NET 1.1 app to 2.0. >> I've been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding something I >> was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time ago. I somehow >> was under the impression that, when compiling an ASP.NET 2.0 app, that >> multiple dll files were output for the project: one .dll per ASPX >> page/file. Gone was the day when we could simply compile the project and >> get a single .dll that we could then move to the production bin folder. >> >> But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on 2.0, I'm >> not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. >> >> So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our ASP.NET >> 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get multiple output >> dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? >> >> Thanks! >> > >
I'm assuming you're using VS to generate the project. VS 2005 SP 1
introduced the Web Application Project that works very similar to the VS 2002/3 web project and compiles everything into a single dll. The original web project, called Web Site Project, that shipped with VS 2005 does have this behavior. Mainly it uses a different directive to identify the code seperated from the web page. It uses the CodeFile directive instead of the CodeBehind. Unfortunatley, this can lead to some problems sharing code amongst pages if they're in different directories since they don't necessarily know about eachother. The way around this was the App_Code directory, which gets compiled first and is available to all pages. The Web Site Project was a nice idea, but so many people cried foul on it that MS hurried and created the Web Application Project to give us the same experience we were used to for 1.x development. -- Hope this helps, Mark Fitzpatrick Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006. 2007 and beyond [quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.COM> wrote in message news:uGyeSh4vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > I'm finally getting around to migrating a "big" ASP.NET 1.1 app to 2.0. > I've been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding something I > was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time ago. I somehow > was under the impression that, when compiling an ASP.NET 2.0 app, that > multiple dll files were output for the project: one .dll per ASPX > page/file. Gone was the day when we could simply compile the project and > get a single .dll that we could then move to the production bin folder. > > But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on 2.0, I'm > not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. > > So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our ASP.NET > 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get multiple output > dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? > > Thanks! >
just like 1.1, 2.0 creates a dll per page. with a deploy project you can
precompile 2.0 page dll's. with 1.1 these are created in a temp folder at runtime (basically every recycle). the difference between 2.0 and 1.1 (or 2.0 sp1 web applications) is the codebehind handling. in 1.1 an extra dll is created thats the codebehind. in 2.0 the codebehind is included in the page dll. if you don't mind your 2.0 to having the same slow startup as 1.1, then don't use deploy projects. -- bruce (sqlwork.com) [quoted text, click to view] Bob Johnson wrote:
> Thank you Mark... so, to cut to the chase on my scenario, is it true (given > what you wrote) that I will need to do the following to get my 1.1 app into > 2.0 and get the single-dll-when-compiling experience I had in 1.1? > > Step 1 - install SP1 for VS 2005 (I have not already done this) > Step 2 - open my 1.1 project in VS 2005 and let the conversion wizard take > over; converting everything to 2.0. > Step 3 - go on with life in the 2.0 world just like I would have in the 1.1 > world (i.e, I can keep my carefully planned folder structure without having > to migrate it all to App_Code"; compile and get a single dll, etc). > > Would you expect the above steps to get me where I want to go? > > Separately, I do understand the option that Mr. Nemtsev presented - but I'd > prefer to avoid having to create a deployment project if I can get what I > want without creating the deployment project. > > Thanks > > -Bob > > > > > > "Mark Fitzpatrick" <markfitz@fitzme.com> wrote in message > news:eR%23Td78vHHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> I'm assuming you're using VS to generate the project. VS 2005 SP 1 >> introduced the Web Application Project that works very similar to the VS >> 2002/3 web project and compiles everything into a single dll. The original >> web project, called Web Site Project, that shipped with VS 2005 does have >> this behavior. Mainly it uses a different directive to identify the code >> seperated from the web page. It uses the CodeFile directive instead of the >> CodeBehind. Unfortunatley, this can lead to some problems sharing code >> amongst pages if they're in different directories since they don't >> necessarily know about eachother. The way around this was the App_Code >> directory, which gets compiled first and is available to all pages. The >> Web Site Project was a nice idea, but so many people cried foul on it that >> MS hurried and created the Web Application Project to give us the same >> experience we were used to for 1.x development. >> >> >> -- >> Hope this helps, >> Mark Fitzpatrick >> Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006. 2007 and beyond >> >> >> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.COM> wrote in message >> news:uGyeSh4vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> I'm finally getting around to migrating a "big" ASP.NET 1.1 app to 2.0. >>> I've been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding something I >>> was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time ago. I somehow >>> was under the impression that, when compiling an ASP.NET 2.0 app, that >>> multiple dll files were output for the project: one .dll per ASPX >>> page/file. Gone was the day when we could simply compile the project and >>> get a single .dll that we could then move to the production bin folder. >>> >>> But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on 2.0, I'm >>> not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. >>> >>> So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our ASP.NET >>> 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get multiple output >>> dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >
Thanks Bruce, RE:
<< if you don't mind your 2.0 to having the same slow startup as 1.1, then don't use deploy projects. >> Okay I *do* mind that. So, given this additional consideration/benefit of using 2.0 (precompilation) - is there any general recommendation as to which VS 2005 project type to migrate to (from 1.1) ---> Web Site Project vs. Web Application Project (ala 2005/SP1) --- and given my objectives as listed below: OBJECTIVES 1. Migrate from 1.1 to 2.0 and KEEP my existing non trivial 1.1 file/folder structure organization. 2. Compile to one .dll (for ease of updating production -- I don't want to have to keep track of and move [up to] dozens of .dlls to production for maintenance releases) 3. Gain the benefits of 2.0 precompilation (for faster [than 1.1] startups). Please comment on the following plan: Does it seem like a reasonable strategy ? given the above objectives? 1. I will migrate the old 2003/1.1 project to the new Web Application Project (ala 2005/SP1). 2. I will then create a deployment project (for precompilation purposes). Thanks again for your perspectives.
Actually, the more important one is the web application project:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336618.aspx -- Gregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com Co-author: Microsoft Expression Web Bible (upcoming) ************************************************ Think outside the box! ************************************************ [quoted text, click to view] "Michael Nemtsev" <nemtsev@msn.com> wrote in message news:a279a63a3fccad8c98ddb28882f2f@msnews.microsoft.com... > Hello Bob, > > Use "web deployment project" to control the dll compiling output > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336619.aspx > There you can change how your project will be build - with the single dll > or with several > > > --- > WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP]. My blog: > http://spaces.live.com/laflour > Team blog: http://devkids.blogspot.com/ > > "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we > miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo > > BJ> I'm finally getting around to migrating a "big" ASP.NET 1.1 app to > BJ> 2.0. I've been reading up on the differences and I'm NOT finding > BJ> something I was lead to believe was the case [about 2.0] a long time > BJ> ago. I somehow was under the impression that, when compiling an > BJ> ASP.NET 2.0 app, that multiple dll files were output for the > BJ> project: one .dll per ASPX page/file. Gone was the day when we could > BJ> simply compile the project and get a single .dll that we could then > BJ> move to the production bin folder. > BJ> BJ> But in doing my current round of research to get up to speed on > 2.0, > BJ> I'm not finding anything that supports that erstwhile understanding. > BJ> BJ> So - do we still get one big happy .dll in the bin folder for our > BJ> ASP.NET 2.0 Web applications when we compile? Or do we really get > BJ> multiple output dlls (one per ASPX page/file).??? > BJ> BJ> Thanks! > BJ> >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |