Can I run two localhost sites at once?

[darrel]

I'm trying to figure out if I can run to localhost sites at once. Such as
'localhost' and 'site2.localhos t'.

It appears I can set both of them up, but not run them at the same time. Is
that true? If so, what was MS thinking? Ugh.

Alternatively, is there a practical way to have a site run from a directory
within your root folder and somehow have it still obey root-relative links?

-Darrel

[Karl Seguin]

A site can differ by either the IP address, the hostname or the port.

Windows XP Pro doesn't support running multiple sites because some people
would likely use it to do stuff they aren't supposed to (like run a bad
hosting company off of it).

normally you solve link issues in ASP.Net by using a number of tools, such
as ~ in the path, Request.Applica tionPath and stuff like that. You
shouldn't develop an application to work at the root or not, it should work
in both situations.

you might want to check out:
http://www.informit.com/articles/art...&seqNum=2&rl=1

Karl

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/
"darrel" <no*****@hotmai l.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP12.phx.gb l...

I'm trying to figure out if I can run to localhost sites at once. Such as
'localhost' and 'site2.localhos t'.

It appears I can set both of them up, but not run them at the same time.
Is
that true? If so, what was MS thinking? Ugh.

Alternatively, is there a practical way to have a site run from a
directory
within your root folder and somehow have it still obey root-relative
links?

-Darrel

[darrel]

> Windows XP Pro doesn't support running multiple sites because some people

would likely use it to do stuff they aren't supposed to (like run a bad
hosting company off of it).
That is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard for MS crippling a product. ;o)

OK, not the dumbest, but right up there. ;oD
normally you solve link issues in ASP.Net by using a number of tools, such
as ~ in the path, Request.Applica tionPath and stuff like that. You
shouldn't develop an application to work at the root or not, it should work in both situations.
That seems like good advice, but wouldn't it always have to be at the root
for root-relative linking?
you might want to check out:
http://www.informit.com/articles/art...&seqNum=2&rl=1

Root Path Reference Syntax seems nice, but is only a server-side solution. I
still have to deal with all my client side links to CSS files, js, images,
and static html files.

*sigh*

-Darrel

[Kevin Spencer]

If you're running Windows Server 2003, you can set up as many web sites as
you want. On a Windows XP Pro box, you can set up only one. But you can set
up as many separate web applications in that site as you need.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

"darrel" <no*****@hotmai l.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP12.phx.gb l...

I'm trying to figure out if I can run to localhost sites at once. Such as
'localhost' and 'site2.localhos t'.

It appears I can set both of them up, but not run them at the same time.
Is
that true? If so, what was MS thinking? Ugh.

Alternatively, is there a practical way to have a site run from a
directory
within your root folder and somehow have it still obey root-relative
links?

-Darrel

[darrel]

> If you're running Windows Server 2003, you can set up as many web sites as

you want. On a Windows XP Pro box, you can set up only one. But you can set up as many separate web applications in that site as you need.

It boggles the mind that MS would purposely annoy the very developers that
keep the .net thing going...

I guess we're gluttons for punishment.

-Darrel

[Karl Seguin]

Well, I'm no official spokesperson for MS, I'm guessing that's why, but I
could be way off :)

You never know what changes might come, so forcing one way is bad. I've been
in many reorgs where an independent site suddenly became a sub-site of
another one. When it comes to many of your client files such as css and js,
you are hopefully using master pages which makes this a lot less painful.
But I agree it isn't a global solution. Nonetheless, I would still hope
that you would consider trying to build it flexible enough to work both ways
(custom server controls can really help too!)

Karl
--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/
"darrel" <no*****@hotmai l.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP15.phx.gbl. ..

Windows XP Pro doesn't support running multiple sites because some people
would likely use it to do stuff they aren't supposed to (like run a bad
hosting company off of it).

That is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard for MS crippling a product. ;o)

OK, not the dumbest, but right up there. ;oD

normally you solve link issues in ASP.Net by using a number of tools,
such
as ~ in the path, Request.Applica tionPath and stuff like that. You
shouldn't develop an application to work at the root or not, it should

work

in both situations.

That seems like good advice, but wouldn't it always have to be at the root
for root-relative linking?

you might want to check out:
http://www.informit.com/articles/art...&seqNum=2&rl=1

Root Path Reference Syntax seems nice, but is only a server-side solution.
I
still have to deal with all my client side links to CSS files, js, images,
and static html files.

*sigh*

-Darrel

[darrel]

> You never know what changes might come, so forcing one way is bad. I've
been

in many reorgs where an independent site suddenly became a sub-site of
another one.
That's true, though the better way to handle that is to use subdomains
(IMHO, of course).

In our case, we're two developers with complete control over the site(s).
Right now we have our existing .net site and are building our new .net site.
I need to maintain the old while building the new, hence the need/preference
to have two sites on my local machine.
When it comes to many of your client files such as css and js,
you are hopefully using master pages which makes this a lot less painful.

Nope. But close to it. We decided to hold off until we move to .net 2 for
that type of implementation. In this case, we're mainly using 'smart'
controls in the HEAD to maintain those types of links...so that's a valid
point...a lot of this I can handle server-side.

-Darrel

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

I guess we're gluttons for punishment.

Nah.

You're only laboring under the mistaken notion that
server OS's should be as cheaply priced as client OS's.

If you want a server OS, pay for it.
Otherwise, don't complain about client OS capabilities.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== ========
"darrel" <no*****@hotmai l.com> wrote in message
news:uZ******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...

If you're running Windows Server 2003, you can set up as many web sites as
you want. On a Windows XP Pro box, you can set up only one. But you can

set

up as many separate web applications in that site as you need.

It boggles the mind that MS would purposely annoy the very developers that
keep the .net thing going...

I guess we're gluttons for punishment.

-Darrel

[darrel]

> You're only laboring under the mistaken notion that

server OS's should be as cheaply priced as client OS's.
My Mac running OS8 could run multiple web sites. There's nothing special
about it. It's just MS crippling for the sake of crippling so they can
sucker more IT departments into increased upgrade/licensing fees.
If you want a server OS, pay for it.
Or get one of the many free ones, or OSX. Or...
Otherwise, don't complain about client OS capabilities.

I will complain about MS pissing on the very developers that maintain MS's
status quo.

I don't think my next job will be in an MS shop, that's for sure. ;O)

-Darrel

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Or get one of the many free ones, or OSX. Or...
It's your choice.

re: I don't think my next job will be in an MS shop, that's for sure.

Sorry to see you'll miss out on a bunch of web server improvements,
only because you think that a client OS should be as cheap, or be
as equally-featured, as a server OS.

Go with the "free" ( which are not so "free" ).
You'll get what you pay for.

I wish you luck with your decision.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== ========
"darrel" <no*****@hotmai l.com> wrote in message
news:Os******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...

You're only laboring under the mistaken notion that
server OS's should be as cheaply priced as client OS's.

My Mac running OS8 could run multiple web sites. There's nothing special
about it. It's just MS crippling for the sake of crippling so they can
sucker more IT departments into increased upgrade/licensing fees.

If you want a server OS, pay for it.

Or get one of the many free ones, or OSX. Or...

Otherwise, don't complain about client OS capabilities.

I will complain about MS pissing on the very developers that maintain MS's
status quo.

I don't think my next job will be in an MS shop, that's for sure. ;O)

-Darrel