hi,
we have been working on web based applications built in ASP for quite
sometime now, but now we are moving to ASP.net. we have decided to use
ASP.NET for developing new modules in our current projects (built in ASP).
So, the applications will be composed of both ASP and ASP.NET pages
simultaneously. Since, ASP is a scripting language, it was easier for us to
put all the source code on a single web server, add the web to visual
soursafe using FP extentions in IIS, connect to the web applications from
development workstations using visual interdev and start checking files
in/out without any problem. the developers would test the effects of their
changes right on the web server by hitting refresh or F5. Everything takes
place on the web server, except code modification.

now, since we are moving from a scripting language to a "compiled" language
(ASP.NET), that means the application would need to be "built" on
development workstations before being deployed on server (check in), since i
cannot expect my developers to build the application on server after every
single change they make on their own machine, coz they will keep switching
between machines forever. Moreover, i want the developers to be able to
"debug" their appliactions rigth on other workstations (i found out that
debugging is nearly impossible if application is placed on server, just like
it was in ASP 3.0).

My question is:

1. What are the standard/recommended architectures for setting up
development environments for ASP.NET applications ?
2. Which one should i use if i want to use a).visual sourcesafe for version
management. b) debugging capability for all developers on their own machines
rather than server, c) easier maintenance/no or least code synchronization
hassle.

desparately waiting for response ...

thanks,

akhlaq khan.

Answers embedded

> My question is:
>
> 1. What are the standard/recommended architectures for setting up
> development environments for ASP.NET applications ?

Have a dedicated development server on which the projects are created. As
long as your developers open the project from the server any changes they
make will updated on the server.
If they do a Project >> Build then the correct files will be automatically
uploaded to the dev server.

> 2. Which one should i use if i want to use
>a).visual sourcesafe for version management.
>b) debugging capability for all developers on their own machines rather
>than server,
>c) easier maintenance/no or least code synchronization hassle.

For easiest and most integrated version management consider using SourceSafe
version 6.0d. It directly integrates with VS.NET and when your developers
try to make changes to files it will prompt them to checkout the files. It
can even be set to upload the changes on vs.net shutdown.

I have been using win2k3 EE server as a dev server with XP destkop boxes and
it all works just fine. Tried other products for version management but too
used to sourcesafe to have stuck with it.

--

Regards,

Hermit Dave
(http://hdave.blogspot.com)

Hi Akhlaq,

I can't tell you the "best" way, but I can tell you how we do it. We have XP
Pro workstations for our developers, each with IIS running on it. We use
Visual SourceSafe as well. We check the ASP.Net projects into SourceSafe,
and work from local copies. This prevents one developer from working on
something another developer has checked out.

When you use VSS with ASP.Net, the project files are created in the web
directory on the client machine. The project file itself can be anywhere. We
keep the project files in our documents folders, along with our non-web app
project folders. When another developer needs a copy, he opens the project
from VSS, copying the files into a new web app which VS.Net sets up.

Just make sure that only Projects, not solutions are kept in VSS, and you
should be fine.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
I get paid good money to
solve puzzles for a living

"Akhlaq Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> hi,
> we have been working on web based applications built in ASP for quite
> sometime now, but now we are moving to ASP.net. we have decided to use
> ASP.NET for developing new modules in our current projects (built in ASP).
> So, the applications will be composed of both ASP and ASP.NET pages
> simultaneously. Since, ASP is a scripting language, it was easier for us
to
> put all the source code on a single web server, add the web to visual
> soursafe using FP extentions in IIS, connect to the web applications from
> development workstations using visual interdev and start checking files
> in/out without any problem. the developers would test the effects of their
> changes right on the web server by hitting refresh or F5. Everything takes
> place on the web server, except code modification.
>
> now, since we are moving from a scripting language to a "compiled"
language
> (ASP.NET), that means the application would need to be "built" on
> development workstations before being deployed on server (check in), since
i
> cannot expect my developers to build the application on server after every
> single change they make on their own machine, coz they will keep switching
> between machines forever. Moreover, i want the developers to be able to
> "debug" their appliactions rigth on other workstations (i found out that
> debugging is nearly impossible if application is placed on server, just
like
> it was in ASP 3.0).
>
> My question is:
>
> 1. What are the standard/recommended architectures for setting up
> development environments for ASP.NET applications ?
> 2. Which one should i use if i want to use a).visual sourcesafe for
version
> management. b) debugging capability for all developers on their own
machines
> rather than server, c) easier maintenance/no or least code synchronization
> hassle.
>
> desparately waiting for response ...
>
> thanks,
>
> akhlaq khan.
>
>

Hi,

This will link you to a presentation, almost 2 hours long, that will show
you how to set everything up in a few different ways:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;328845

Good luck! Ken.

--
Ken Dopierala Jr.
For great ASP.Net web hosting try:
http://www.webhost4life.com/default.asp?refid=Spinlight

"Akhlaq Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> hi,
> we have been working on web based applications built in ASP for quite
> sometime now, but now we are moving to ASP.net. we have decided to use
> ASP.NET for developing new modules in our current projects (built in ASP).
> So, the applications will be composed of both ASP and ASP.NET pages
> simultaneously. Since, ASP is a scripting language, it was easier for us
to
> put all the source code on a single web server, add the web to visual
> soursafe using FP extentions in IIS, connect to the web applications from
> development workstations using visual interdev and start checking files
> in/out without any problem. the developers would test the effects of their
> changes right on the web server by hitting refresh or F5. Everything takes
> place on the web server, except code modification.
>
> now, since we are moving from a scripting language to a "compiled"
language
> (ASP.NET), that means the application would need to be "built" on
> development workstations before being deployed on server (check in), since
i
> cannot expect my developers to build the application on server after every
> single change they make on their own machine, coz they will keep switching
> between machines forever. Moreover, i want the developers to be able to
> "debug" their appliactions rigth on other workstations (i found out that
> debugging is nearly impossible if application is placed on server, just
like
> it was in ASP 3.0).
>
> My question is:
>
> 1. What are the standard/recommended architectures for setting up
> development environments for ASP.NET applications ?
> 2. Which one should i use if i want to use a).visual sourcesafe for
version
> management. b) debugging capability for all developers on their own
machines
> rather than server, c) easier maintenance/no or least code synchronization
> hassle.
>
> desparately waiting for response ...
>
> thanks,
>
> akhlaq khan.
>
>

The preferred method is to develop locally and use some form of source
control (in most cases SourceSafe). When a developer is ready to push
something to a test server, he gets latest and ensures a build can compile.
It is then pushed up and tested.

NOTE: This was also true in the ASP world.

---

Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************

"Akhlaq Khan" wrote:

> hi,
> we have been working on web based applications built in ASP for quite
> sometime now, but now we are moving to ASP.net. we have decided to use
> ASP.NET for developing new modules in our current projects (built in ASP).
> So, the applications will be composed of both ASP and ASP.NET pages
> simultaneously. Since, ASP is a scripting language, it was easier for us to
> put all the source code on a single web server, add the web to visual
> soursafe using FP extentions in IIS, connect to the web applications from
> development workstations using visual interdev and start checking files
> in/out without any problem. the developers would test the effects of their
> changes right on the web server by hitting refresh or F5. Everything takes
> place on the web server, except code modification.
>
> now, since we are moving from a scripting language to a "compiled" language
> (ASP.NET), that means the application would need to be "built" on
> development workstations before being deployed on server (check in), since i
> cannot expect my developers to build the application on server after every
> single change they make on their own machine, coz they will keep switching
> between machines forever. Moreover, i want the developers to be able to
> "debug" their appliactions rigth on other workstations (i found out that
> debugging is nearly impossible if application is placed on server, just like
> it was in ASP 3.0).
>
> My question is:
>
> 1. What are the standard/recommended architectures for setting up
> development environments for ASP.NET applications ?
> 2. Which one should i use if i want to use a).visual sourcesafe for version
> management. b) debugging capability for all developers on their own machines
> rather than server, c) easier maintenance/no or least code synchronization
> hassle.
>
> desparately waiting for response ...
>
> thanks,
>
> akhlaq khan.
>
>
>