clear the assembly's download cache after a No-touch deployment

Hello all!

If a client has run a program with url like this:
http://server/HelloWorld.exe, then the assembly HelloWorld.exe will be
cached in Assembly's Download Cache. But if then a new version of
HelloWorld.EXE is deployed on server, the client will experience a
crash until he/she clears the assembly's download cache (at least on
this machine...)

is it possible to make a client to automatically delete its cached
assembly when running a no-touch application? Or can you delete the
cached HelloWorld.EXE on other machines in the domain with some script
trick?

A solution could be to "Remove all files..." from within iexplorer
before executing URL, but this would probably generate lots of support
phonecalls.

Yuo could run gacutil /cdl, but then the gacutil program needs to be
installed on client first.

Any other ideas?

re: clear the assembly's download cache after a No-touch deployment

Frasse wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello all!
>
> If a client has run a program with url like this:
> http://server/HelloWorld.exe, then the assembly HelloWorld.exe will be
> cached in Assembly's Download Cache. But if then a new version of
> HelloWorld.EXE is deployed on server, the client will experience a
> crash until he/she clears the assembly's download cache (at least on
> this machine...)[/color]

I think this is the issue you need to address. The premise of no-touch or
smart deployment is that you should be able to update only the file on the
server and clients would get the new version automatically next time they
ran the application. As long as they continue to run the app using the url
and not try to execute it directly from the download cache. You need to
determine why the crash is happening. Can you post more info around that?
--
Tom Porterfield
MS-MVP MCE
http://support.telop.org

Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup only.

re: clear the assembly's download cache after a No-touch deployment

"Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message news:<OGGOC2I$DHA.2660@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...[color=blue]
> Frasse wrote:[color=green]
> > Hello all!
> >
> > If a client has run a program with url like this:
> > http://server/HelloWorld.exe, then the assembly HelloWorld.exe will be
> > cached in Assembly's Download Cache. But if then a new version of
> > HelloWorld.EXE is deployed on server, the client will experience a
> > crash until he/she clears the assembly's download cache (at least on
> > this machine...)[/color]
>
> I think this is the issue you need to address. The premise of no-touch or
> smart deployment is that you should be able to update only the file on the
> server and clients would get the new version automatically next time they
> ran the application. As long as they continue to run the app using the url
> and not try to execute it directly from the download cache. You need to
> determine why the crash is happening. Can you post more info around that?[/color]

Thank you for answering!

I finally got the crasch again. A popup window says :
"An exception 'System.IO.FileLoadException' has occured in IEExec.exe"
and I am given the possibility to choose debugger.

If I remove the prev. downloaded file the program executes as
expected.

re: clear the assembly's download cache after a No-touch deployment

Your problem may be that you have your assemblyinfo.cpp set up to automatically increment the version number of your builds. In assembyinfo.vb chang

<Assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.*")

To an explicit (developer chosen) version number and update by hand when you need to

<Assembly: AssemblyVersion("0.0.1.1")>

See discussion at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....com%26rnum%3D

re: clear the assembly's download cache after a No-touch deployment

Your problem may be that you have your assemblyinfo.cpp set up to automatically increment the version number of your builds. In assembyinfo.vb chang

<Assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.*")

To an explicit (developer chosen) version number and update by hand when you need to

<Assembly: AssemblyVersion("0.0.1.1")>

See discussion at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....com%26rnum%3D