please advise about putting asp functions into a DLL

[Scotter]

Please forgive me for reposting; last title didn't quite say it right.

I have an ASP application I wrote in vbScript so this is not .Net.
There are 20 nearly identical versions of this application running on my
2003 server.
It is a web content management system.
My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase
efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this thing
and letting others run it on their servers.

I'm wondering/hoping if the following benefit could be:
If I'm running identical version of this ASP application 20 times on my
server, I'm running 20 of certain identical functions. If I drop these
functions into ONE DLL and reference that ONE DLL from the 20 applications,
maybe less
overhead on server? Does it work that way?

I know I should just rebuild this entire thing in .Net but not ready yet
since I haven't learned .Net yet.

Thanks for any advice you can give!
--
Scotter

[Carol]

Ask a COM group..?

"Scotter" <sp**@spam.com> wrote in message
news:wH*****************@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Please forgive me for reposting; last title didn't quite say it right.

I have an ASP application I wrote in vbScript so this is not .Net.
There are 20 nearly identical versions of this application running on my
2003 server.
It is a web content management system.
My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase
efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this thing and letting others run it on their servers.

I'm wondering/hoping if the following benefit could be:
If I'm running identical version of this ASP application 20 times on my
server, I'm running 20 of certain identical functions. If I drop these
functions into ONE DLL and reference that ONE DLL from the 20 applications, maybe less
overhead on server? Does it work that way?

I know I should just rebuild this entire thing in .Net but not ready yet
since I haven't learned .Net yet.

Thanks for any advice you can give!
--
Scotter

[Bullschmidt]

Unless it's a high traffic site where every millisecond matters I don't
think it will help much. And of course if you're selling it, having
components that have to be installed on servers could be considered a
complication (i.e. a drawback).

Best regards,
J. Paul Schmidt, Classic ASP Web Designer
http://www.Bullschmidt.com
Classic ASP Design Tips, ASP Web Database Demo, ASP Bar Chart Tool...
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

[Carol]

Still, It's done all the time..

"Bullschmidt" <pa**@bullschmidt.com-nospam> wrote in message
news:eg**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Unless it's a high traffic site where every millisecond matters I don't
think it will help much. And of course if you're selling it, having
components that have to be installed on servers could be considered a
complication (i.e. a drawback).

Best regards,
J. Paul Schmidt, Classic ASP Web Designer
http://www.Bullschmidt.com
Classic ASP Design Tips, ASP Web Database Demo, ASP Bar Chart Tool...
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

[[MSFT]]

Hi Scotter,

Since your original code is in VBscript, it will be easy to convert them
into VB ActiveX DLL project. This kind of code is compiled code and the
performance will be better than VBscript. I think your idea is great.

For .NET, you may need to upgrade the application to ASp .NET. The
performance will get improved depend on what work it do.

Luke

[Scotter]

Thanks for the generous replies!
Yeah I understand how having to install components on a server can be a pain
compared to just copying asp text files into a folder. The thing is I need
to *protect* my code so that people don't take my application, make a few
changes, rename it, and sell it as theirs. I hate having to care about that
but I guess it is necessary in this world...

[Aaron [SQL Server MVP]]

> My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase

efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this thing and letting others run it on their servers.

Well, despite what this article says (plenty of research since it was
written), the DLL will protect your code but is highly unlikely to increase
efficiency.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...l/404track.asp

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

[Scotter]

Thanks, Aaron.
I guess increasing efficiency as far as pure performance, I'm not really as
interested in.
The kind of efficiency I'm looking for, besides protecting my code, is this:
Instead of having i_fn_dowhatever.asp existing in twenty different web sites
and called from many asp pages within each of those sites, I'm thinking it
would be cool to have one DLL on any given server and in that DLL I have
that function (as well as others) and each of the sites can call said
function(s). So does that idea make sense? Would it work that way?
Obviously, I haven't done any COM-based stuff like this so I'm very
appreciative of whatever advice you all are giving me.
Thanks!
Scott
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase
efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this thing

and letting others run it on their servers.

Well, despite what this article says (plenty of research since it was
written), the DLL will protect your code but is highly unlikely to

increase efficiency.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...l/404track.asp

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

[Mark Schupp]

Be advised that if you have code common to multiple sites in a com dll then
if you upgrade the application you have to upgrade all sites at the same
time unless you change the name of the dll with each release (that is what
we do, we now even keep the dll names in application variables so they only
have to be changed in global.asa).

--
Mark Schupp
Head of Development
Integrity eLearning
www.ielearning.com
"Scotter" <sp**@spam.com> wrote in message
news:uB******************@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Thanks, Aaron.
I guess increasing efficiency as far as pure performance, I'm not really as interested in.
The kind of efficiency I'm looking for, besides protecting my code, is this: Instead of having i_fn_dowhatever.asp existing in twenty different web sites and called from many asp pages within each of those sites, I'm thinking it
would be cool to have one DLL on any given server and in that DLL I have
that function (as well as others) and each of the sites can call said
function(s). So does that idea make sense? Would it work that way?
Obviously, I haven't done any COM-based stuff like this so I'm very
appreciative of whatever advice you all are giving me.
Thanks!
Scott
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase
efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this

thing

and letting others run it on their servers.

Well, despite what this article says (plenty of research since it was
written), the DLL will protect your code but is highly unlikely to

increase

efficiency.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...l/404track.asp

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

[Scotter]

VERY good idea! I'll be adding "s_name_DLL_function_file" to my set of
config variables (stored in the db and in application vars). Thanks!!

"Mark Schupp" <ms*****@ielearning.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Be advised that if you have code common to multiple sites in a com dll then if you upgrade the application you have to upgrade all sites at the same
time unless you change the name of the dll with each release (that is what
we do, we now even keep the dll names in application variables so they only have to be changed in global.asa).

--
Mark Schupp
Head of Development
Integrity eLearning
www.ielearning.com
"Scotter" <sp**@spam.com> wrote in message
news:uB******************@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Thanks, Aaron.
I guess increasing efficiency as far as pure performance, I'm not really

as

interested in.
The kind of efficiency I'm looking for, besides protecting my code, is

this:

Instead of having i_fn_dowhatever.asp existing in twenty different web

sites

and called from many asp pages within each of those sites, I'm thinking it would be cool to have one DLL on any given server and in that DLL I have
that function (as well as others) and each of the sites can call said
function(s). So does that idea make sense? Would it work that way?
Obviously, I haven't done any COM-based stuff like this so I'm very
appreciative of whatever advice you all are giving me.
Thanks!
Scott
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to increase > efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this thing
> and letting others run it on their servers.

Well, despite what this article says (plenty of research since it was
written), the DLL will protect your code but is highly unlikely to

increase

efficiency.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...l/404track.asp

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

[Mark Schupp]

> VERY good idea! I'll be adding "s_name_DLL_function_file" to my set of

config variables (stored in the db and in application vars). Thanks!!
And it only took me 5 releases (edits to about 100 files in each release) to
figure that out.

--
Mark Schupp
Head of Development
Integrity eLearning
www.ielearning.com
"Scotter" <sp**@spam.com> wrote in message
news:wW******************@fe2.texas.rr.com... VERY good idea! I'll be adding "s_name_DLL_function_file" to my set of
config variables (stored in the db and in application vars). Thanks!!

"Mark Schupp" <ms*****@ielearning.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Be advised that if you have code common to multiple sites in a com dll then

if you upgrade the application you have to upgrade all sites at the same
time unless you change the name of the dll with each release (that is what

we do, we now even keep the dll names in application variables so they

only

have to be changed in global.asa).

--
Mark Schupp
Head of Development
Integrity eLearning
www.ielearning.com
"Scotter" <sp**@spam.com> wrote in message
news:uB******************@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Thanks, Aaron.
I guess increasing efficiency as far as pure performance, I'm not really

as

interested in.
The kind of efficiency I'm looking for, besides protecting my code, is

this:

Instead of having i_fn_dowhatever.asp existing in twenty different web

sites

and called from many asp pages within each of those sites, I'm

thinking it would be cool to have one DLL on any given server and in that DLL I

have that function (as well as others) and each of the sites can call said
function(s). So does that idea make sense? Would it work that way?
Obviously, I haven't done any COM-based stuff like this so I'm very
appreciative of whatever advice you all are giving me.
Thanks!
Scott
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > My idea is to drop some of the common functions into a DLL to

increase > > efficiency AND to protect the source code so I can start selling this > thing
> > and letting others run it on their servers.
>
> Well, despite what this article says (plenty of research since it was > written), the DLL will protect your code but is highly unlikely to
increase
> efficiency.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...l/404track.asp
>
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
>