Published DLLs - file names keep on changing...

> > This would all work well except that the names of
the DLLs that are
> > published are not always the same. Hence, we
cannot
> automate the process.

With the new approach to ASP.NET applications, the model
simply takes
everything in your web project directory as what needs to be
deployed. This
is true if you do demand compilation or precompile. Can you
simply take the
entire directory as what needs to be installed?

> 1. Use the ASP.NET pre-compiler. I believe this will
> generated predictable
> names.

This has an unfortunate side effect of creating a single
assembly per page.

> 2. Convert over to the 2003-style "Web
Application Project",
> an add-on which
> was just released a few days ago. This restores the old
2003
> project system
> with its predictable binary names.

For new projects I don't understand why people would want
to use this retro
style. It has the drawbacks that they were trying to get
away from in v2.0.

The other thing to look into is the "Web Deployment
Projects" which allows
more control over the output of a precompile:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/reference/infra
structure/wdp/

-Brock
http://staff.develop.
com/ballen

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

-- Brock Said:
- For new projects I don't understand why people would want
to use this
retro style. It has the drawbacks that they were trying to
get away from in
v2.0.

Oh Brock, you're not going to get us to have that argument
again... ;)

For anyone else who is interested, please search the
archives.  This
argument has been waged many times already.

Thanks,

Shawn Wildermuth
http://adoguy.com
C# MVP, MCSD.NET, Author and Speaker

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

> > 1. Use the ASP.NET pre-compiler. I believe this
will
> > generated predictable
> > names.
>
> This has an unfortunate side effect of creating a
single assembly per page.

Not with the correct command-line options to the
precompiler.

> For new projects I don't understand why people would
want to use this retro
> style. It has the drawbacks that they were trying to
get away from in v2.0.

It's vastly superior when doing strong-typed access between
pages/controls, between master pages, and it cooperates with
source-control a TON better (e.g. doesn't _assume_ that
everything in
the directory is automatically part of the project).  The
OLD VS2003
way was the worst of the possibilities, but that was mostly
due to the
insistence on WebDav and IIS integration.

I do like the Web Site projects for distributed examples as
it needs
no setup or deployment to get going.  That's probably why
YOU like it
so much... much of your work at Developmentor is building
one-offs and
examples, right?

-- 
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they
make as they fly
by." –Douglas Adams

Marc C. Brooks
http://musingmarc.blog
spot.com

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com