Ok guys/gals i have the task of upgrading a app at work from asp.net 1.1 to
2.0. Since ive only worked with .Net briefly and asp.net once i need a
little help here. I have been googling around and really haven't got the
answer to my question.

I guess my confusion started when we had a meeting on this conversion. The
guy here at work who has done most of our asp.net work told my mananger that
the conversion of asp.net 1.1 to 2.0 might be sticky a little bit because
previously they only had to deploy 1 dll. He said with this new version it
compiles each page as a dll so there would be many more dlls to deploy. Ok
this has confused me. When you deployed a 1.1 asp.net app didn't you only
have to deploy the aspx pages, code behind pages (.vb or .cs), and the dlls
that you referenced in your asp.net app? When you ran the page .net would
compile your entire application and stick the dll in a temp directory on the
web server. Am i incorrect? If i am correct what does compiling a web
project really do other than do maybe syntax checking when you do it from
the IDE?

Ok people this is where im confused. I know .Net has that new Precompile
thing so people can't look at your source files if they break into your web
server but i don't think we are going to be doing that as far as i know. I
know with 2.0 a new feature was the ability to use a different langauge on
each page but i would just think this compile each dll into the temp
directory for the web page.

Any help would be appreciated.

thanks,
Brent

Brent,

There are three versions of ASPNET comparing to ASP both for 1.x as for 2.0
A kind of way as is complete as ASP with some new statements
A kind of way with codeBehind but still everytime compiled at runtime
A kind of way with build code Behind, everytime build when you debug it as
well buildable as in every DotNet project.
(The last method is as I use).

The same exist in ASPNET 2.0 with the difference that the build for real is
done in the Publish phase. (There are some moves back from the extreme
difference between a ASPNET application and all other dotNet applications
which were in the first release from 2.0, you can download those changes
from the ASPNET website).

CodeBehind has in 2.0 the name CodePage.

I hope this helps,

Cor

"Brent" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok guys/gals i have the task of upgrading a app at work from asp.net 1.1
> to 2.0. Since ive only worked with .Net briefly and asp.net once i need a
> little help here. I have been googling around and really haven't got the
> answer to my question.
>
> I guess my confusion started when we had a meeting on this conversion. The
> guy here at work who has done most of our asp.net work told my mananger
> that the conversion of asp.net 1.1 to 2.0 might be sticky a little bit
> because previously they only had to deploy 1 dll. He said with this new
> version it compiles each page as a dll so there would be many more dlls to
> deploy. Ok this has confused me. When you deployed a 1.1 asp.net app
> didn't you only have to deploy the aspx pages, code behind pages (.vb or
> .cs), and the dlls that you referenced in your asp.net app? When you ran
> the page .net would compile your entire application and stick the dll in a
> temp directory on the web server. Am i incorrect? If i am correct what
> does compiling a web project really do other than do maybe syntax checking
> when you do it from the IDE?
>
> Ok people this is where im confused. I know .Net has that new Precompile
> thing so people can't look at your source files if they break into your
> web server but i don't think we are going to be doing that as far as i
> know. I know with 2.0 a new feature was the ability to use a different
> langauge on each page but i would just think this compile each dll into
> the temp directory for the web page.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Brent
>

Ok let me make sure i have this straight. In asp.net 1.1 when you compiled a
web page there was a dll that needed to be deployed with your web app in the
bin directory. With asp.net 2.0 if your not going to be precompiling your
pages (which i don't think we are) and we won't be using the publish or WSD.
We will just be using a xcopy then you don't have to worry about copying any
dlls to the web server because asp.net will compile them on the fly.

thanks,
Brent
"Brent" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok guys/gals i have the task of upgrading a app at work from asp.net 1.1
> to 2.0. Since ive only worked with .Net briefly and asp.net once i need a
> little help here. I have been googling around and really haven't got the
> answer to my question.
>
> I guess my confusion started when we had a meeting on this conversion. The
> guy here at work who has done most of our asp.net work told my mananger
> that the conversion of asp.net 1.1 to 2.0 might be sticky a little bit
> because previously they only had to deploy 1 dll. He said with this new
> version it compiles each page as a dll so there would be many more dlls to
> deploy. Ok this has confused me. When you deployed a 1.1 asp.net app
> didn't you only have to deploy the aspx pages, code behind pages (.vb or
> .cs), and the dlls that you referenced in your asp.net app? When you ran
> the page .net would compile your entire application and stick the dll in a
> temp directory on the web server. Am i incorrect? If i am correct what
> does compiling a web project really do other than do maybe syntax checking
> when you do it from the IDE?
>
> Ok people this is where im confused. I know .Net has that new Precompile
> thing so people can't look at your source files if they break into your
> web server but i don't think we are going to be doing that as far as i
> know. I know with 2.0 a new feature was the ability to use a different
> langauge on each page but i would just think this compile each dll into
> the temp directory for the web page.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Brent
>

Brent,

You are not the only one, I wrote that they are (very partial) changing back
behaviour from 2.0 to 1.x style again.

Have a look at the webpage

www.aspnet.net

As far as I know is it normal from Microsoft.

Cor

"Brent" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok let me make sure i have this straight. In asp.net 1.1 when you compiled
> a web page there was a dll that needed to be deployed with your web app in
> the bin directory. With asp.net 2.0 if your not going to be precompiling
> your pages (which i don't think we are) and we won't be using the publish
> or WSD. We will just be using a xcopy then you don't have to worry about
> copying any dlls to the web server because asp.net will compile them on
> the fly.
>
> thanks,
> Brent
> "Brent" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Ok guys/gals i have the task of upgrading a app at work from asp.net 1.1
>> to 2.0. Since ive only worked with .Net briefly and asp.net once i need a
>> little help here. I have been googling around and really haven't got the
>> answer to my question.
>>
>> I guess my confusion started when we had a meeting on this conversion.
>> The guy here at work who has done most of our asp.net work told my
>> mananger that the conversion of asp.net 1.1 to 2.0 might be sticky a
>> little bit because previously they only had to deploy 1 dll. He said with
>> this new version it compiles each page as a dll so there would be many
>> more dlls to deploy. Ok this has confused me. When you deployed a 1.1
>> asp.net app didn't you only have to deploy the aspx pages, code behind
>> pages (.vb or .cs), and the dlls that you referenced in your asp.net app?
>> When you ran the page .net would compile your entire application and
>> stick the dll in a temp directory on the web server. Am i incorrect? If i
>> am correct what does compiling a web project really do other than do
>> maybe syntax checking when you do it from the IDE?
>>
>> Ok people this is where im confused. I know .Net has that new Precompile
>> thing so people can't look at your source files if they break into your
>> web server but i don't think we are going to be doing that as far as i
>> know. I know with 2.0 a new feature was the ability to use a different
>> langauge on each page but i would just think this compile each dll into
>> the temp directory for the web page.
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Brent
>>
>
>

It may not be exactly what you're asking for, but they just released a Web
Application Project add-in for Visual Studio that completely restores the
old 1.x web project paradigm to VS 2005 (and even enabled Edit-N-Continue
for that web project when debugging). It will be officially released as a
part of the SP1 for VS 2005 and will be supported thereafter with VS.

We used it to migrate from 1.x to 2.0 (thousands of web pages) and it worked
like a charm. There was almost nothing to it. At least, as such, using,
will eliminate any confusion. The Web Project paradigm introduced with 2.0
confuses everyone and isn't suitable for our needs.


Thanks,
Shawn