two setup overview questions

[Chris]

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help better
understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS
website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the environment of a
workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL Server.
Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to travel
that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of
resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you have the
hardware, network, etc in a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I still
like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my
client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual Source
Save?

Thanx.

[David Jessee]

Look at this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp

Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the
local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment due to
debugging considerations.

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help better
understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS
website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the environment of a workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL Server. Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to travel that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of
resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you have the hardware, network, etc in a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I still
like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my
client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual Source
Save?

Thanx.

[Scott Allen]

Hi Chris:

I belive option #1 is the most popular. It allows a dev to work and not interfere
with other dev work on the team. Any laptop that can handle 512MB / 1GB of
RAM should handle the setup just fine.

Neither scenario favors source control management over the other. Any approach
taken should include source control.

Have you seen: Team Development with Visual Studio .NET and Visual SourceSafe
[1]?

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ml/tdlg_rm.asp

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help
better understand the following (I've spent considerable time
searching the MS website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the
environment of a workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with
IIS6.0 and SQL Server. Is that the most popular model. I know that if
a developer needed to travel that they could install IIS and Sql
Server locally, but the amount of resources needed to run all that
seems too great, especially if you have the hardware, network, etc in
a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I
still like the approach of the separate server doing the server role.
That my client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual
Source Save?

Thanx.

[Chris]

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I currently
use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail
server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.

I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local
version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server. Then
I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail, etc off
of a real server.

I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be working
on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server, who
wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making changes
to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof way of
doing it?

I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and PC
are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.

"David Jessee" wrote:

Look at this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp

Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the
local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment due to
debugging considerations.

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help better
understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS
website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the environment of

a

workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL

Server.

Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to

travel

that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of
resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you have

the

hardware, network, etc in a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I still
like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my
client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual Source
Save?

Thanx.

[Chris]

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I currently
use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail
server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.

I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local
version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server. Then
I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail, etc off
of a real server.

I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be working
on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server, who
wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making changes
to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof way of
doing it?

I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and PC
are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.

"Scott Allen" wrote:

Hi Chris:

I belive option #1 is the most popular. It allows a dev to work and not interfere
with other dev work on the team. Any laptop that can handle 512MB / 1GB of
RAM should handle the setup just fine.

Neither scenario favors source control management over the other. Any approach
taken should include source control.

Have you seen: Team Development with Visual Studio .NET and Visual SourceSafe
[1]?

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ml/tdlg_rm.asp

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help
better understand the following (I've spent considerable time
searching the MS website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the
environment of a workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with
IIS6.0 and SQL Server. Is that the most popular model. I know that if
a developer needed to travel that they could install IIS and Sql
Server locally, but the amount of resources needed to run all that
seems too great, especially if you have the hardware, network, etc in
a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I
still like the approach of the separate server doing the server role.
That my client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual
Source Save?

Thanx.

[David Jessee]

That's where soircesafe comes in. Its hooked into the Visual Studio IDE,
and if someone else has a file checked out, then you can't edit it. The
versioning happens at a file-centric level.
"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E6******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I currently use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail
server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.

I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local
version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server. Then I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail, etc off of a real server.

I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be working
on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server, who wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making changes to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof way of doing it?

I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and PC are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.

"David Jessee" wrote:

Look at this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp
Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment due to debugging considerations.

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help better understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS website):

1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the environment of

a

workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL

Server.

Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to

travel

that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of
resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you

have the

hardware, network, etc in a development studio.

2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I

still like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.

What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual Source Save?

Thanx.

[Chris]

I've been a sole developer for years but am interested in new team developing
set-up's.
what does everone do for the preoject resources (custom dll, third party,
etc.). Does each developer then have to have their own copy? for their
resource/bin folders? to make available namespace, class, etc?

"David Jessee" wrote:

That's where soircesafe comes in. Its hooked into the Visual Studio IDE,
and if someone else has a file checked out, then you can't edit it. The
versioning happens at a file-centric level.
"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E6******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I

currently

use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail
server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.

I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local
version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server.

Then

I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail, etc

off

of a real server.

I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be working
on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server,

who

wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making

changes

to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof way

of

doing it?

I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and

PC

are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.

"David Jessee" wrote:

Look at this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp
Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment due to debugging considerations.

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
> I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help better > understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS > website):
>
> 1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the environment of a
> workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL
Server.
> Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to
travel
> that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of
> resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you have the
> hardware, network, etc in a development studio.
>
> 2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I still > like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my > client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.
>
> What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual Source > Save?
>
> Thanx.

[David Jessee]

It depends on the 3rd party dll. If it required licensing, then you'dd have
to install it on each person's computer. If its just a extra DLL that you
use for utilities etc, you can place it in the bin folder, add it into your
project, and put it under source control. That way when someone checks out
the project, they get the DLL. (Note, if you place the dll directly into
the bin folder, you'll want to set the reference's CopyLocal property to
False...otherwi se it'll try to copt it from your bin folder to your bin
folder....which is just odd)

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:BA******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I've been a sole developer for years but am interested in new team developing set-up's.
what does everone do for the preoject resources (custom dll, third party,
etc.). Does each developer then have to have their own copy? for their
resource/bin folders? to make available namespace, class, etc?

"David Jessee" wrote:

That's where soircesafe comes in. Its hooked into the Visual Studio IDE, and if someone else has a file checked out, then you can't edit it. The
versioning happens at a file-centric level.
"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E6******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I

currently

use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.

I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server.

Then

I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail,

etc off

of a real server.

I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be

working on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server, who

wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making

changes

to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof

way of

doing it?

I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers

and PC

are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.

"David Jessee" wrote:

> Look at this...
>

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp >
> Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the

> local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment

due to

> debugging considerations.
>
>
>
> "Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
> news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
> > I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help

better

> > understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching

the MS

> > website):
> >
> > 1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the

environment of

> a
> > workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and

SQL > Server.
> > Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to > travel
> > that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of > > resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if

you have

> the
> > hardware, network, etc in a development studio.
> >
> > 2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I

still

> > like the approach of the separate server doing the server role.

That my

> > client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.
> >
> > What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual

Source

> > Save?
> >
> > Thanx.
>
>
>

[Chris]

thanx!

"David Jessee" wrote:

It depends on the 3rd party dll. If it required licensing, then you'dd have
to install it on each person's computer. If its just a extra DLL that you
use for utilities etc, you can place it in the bin folder, add it into your
project, and put it under source control. That way when someone checks out
the project, they get the DLL. (Note, if you place the dll directly into
the bin folder, you'll want to set the reference's CopyLocal property to
False...otherwi se it'll try to copt it from your bin folder to your bin
folder....which is just odd)

"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:BA******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I've been a sole developer for years but am interested in new team

developing

set-up's.
what does everone do for the preoject resources (custom dll, third party,
etc.). Does each developer then have to have their own copy? for their
resource/bin folders? to make available namespace, class, etc?

"David Jessee" wrote:

That's where soircesafe comes in. Its hooked into the Visual Studio IDE, and if someone else has a file checked out, then you can't edit it. The
versioning happens at a file-centric level.
"Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:E6******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
> I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
> I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
> required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
> workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I
currently
> use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server, Mail > server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.
>
> I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a local > version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web Server. Then
> I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e. Data, Mail, etc off
> of a real server.
>
> I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be working > on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production web server, who
> wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about someone making
changes
> to the production server that effect others? I don't see a full-proof way of
> doing it?
>
> I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and PC
> are workstations. Maybe that's just old school.
>
> "David Jessee" wrote:
>
> > Look at this...
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/tdlg_ch2.asp > >
> > Even if you don't have SQL running Locally, you will want to have IIS on the
> > local machine. Especially is you're working in a team environment due to
> > debugging considerations.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris" <Ch***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
> > news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
> > > I would love to be pointed in the direction of resources that help
better
> > > understand the following (I've spent considerable time searching the MS
> > > website):
> > >
> > > 1.) As a ASP.NET developer I've traditionally worked in the
environment of
> > a
> > > workstation with VS.NET and a Windows2003 server with IIS6.0 and SQL > > Server.
> > > Is that the most popular model. I know that if a developer needed to > > travel
> > > that they could install IIS and Sql Server locally, but the amount of > > > resources needed to run all that seems too great, especially if you have
> > the
> > > hardware, network, etc in a development studio.
> > >
> > > 2.) Does either one of these set-ups aid the use of Source Save? I
still
> > > like the approach of the separate server doing the server role. That my
> > > client workstation has VS.NET, etc but no servers running.
> > >
> > > What is the Microsoft recommened set-up for both VS.NET and Visual
Source
> > > Save?
> > >
> > > Thanx.
> >
> >
> >

[Scott Allen]

Chris:

The setup would depend on many factors - the size of the database, the amount
of processing required, etc., so isolated development is not the answer for
all development questions, but I'd still recommend the setup whenever possible.
If I walked into a development shop that did not have this setup I'd ask
"why not?" and have serious concerns if reasonable answers were not forthcoming.
More inline:

I read the articles that were linked in both responses, thank you.
I see the advantages with Source Save but if you,as a developer, are
required to have all the necessary componets and server on your local
workstation that can get pretty expensive and resource intense. I
currently
use a P4, 2.8G, 1GDDR, etc. and can't see running IIS, SQL Server,
Mail
server(if using non-CDONTS), all the third party com objects, etc.
I can see maybe IIS installed locally and have always hoped for a
local version, better than what was attempted before with Personal Web
Server. Then I guess you could 'bounce' all the other requests, i.e.
Data, Mail, etc off of a real server.
Wow, a 2.8Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM should have plenty of horsepower to
run all the software needed for isolated development. Of the handful of machines
I work from at least one has half the processing power and RAM you've spec'ed
out here and performs more than adequately.
I still don't see the point though, if two developers happen to be
working on the same pages, in isollation, then move to the production
web server, who wins? Unless you 100% lock the files, then what about
someone making changes to the production server that effect others? I
don't see a full-proof way of doing it?
This scenario is exactly what source control is for. You never move code
directly from a developer's machine into production - and never make changes
directly in production. Changes are only commited into source control which
can track revisions.
I personnelly like the workstation/server set-up, servers are servers and

PC are >workstations . Maybe that's just old school.

It's unfortunately tedious and error prone. You can easily hit scenarios
where one developer overwrites another developer's work, or one dev makes
a breaking schema change and the entire team is sitting around waiting for
a resolution.

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/