471,306 Members | 840 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,306 software developers and data experts.

How to best prepare for asp.net 2.0 release in advance?

Hi all,

I've spent the past several months developing my ASP.NET 2.0 web site using
Beta 2, and its working great.

Even though 2.0 beta 2 has a Go Live license, I have not deployed to
production yet. It is a brand new web site so I want to wait and just
deploy with the final release of 2.0 now that it is coming in just a couple
weeks.

However it is critical that I go live with the new site as soon as 2.0 is
released as I'd like to prepare as much as possible for the released version
in advance. Here are questions I am hoping will help me prepare better:

1) Will there be changes required to the structure/architecture of code
behind pages created in Beta 2? I seem to recall reading something about
needing to redo code behind pages to fit into some new format. Is this the
case, and if so where can I learn more about it? Will a conversion wizard
take care of this or will I need to do this by hand? I read through this
article here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/be...s/default.aspx but it
didn't say anything about changes to code behind other than it moving
classes to a special folder.

2) Does anyone know if the final shipping version will be identical to the
Release Candiate (is the RC release the same as RTM), or whether there have
been any changes made between the RC and final builds?

3) Will Universal MSDN subscribers have access to the final shipping version
any point before release on Nov 7, even if they cannot go live with it?
Again I want to get everything on the server and set up so that as soon as
we are permited to go live I can make the site publicly accessible and "go
live".

4) Besides what is listed in this article
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/be...s/default.aspx are
there any other considerations or "gotchas" I should watch out for?

5) Do you think we will be able to safely and clearly remove the RC build
and install the final build when available? I'm hesitant to install RC
because I dread the thought that somehow I could wind up needed to rebuild
my box in order to run the final version.

Thanks!

Steve
Nov 19 '05 #1
10 1200
> 5) Like Kevin said, I'd try moving to the RC now - but I wouldn't put
it near a production machine unless you are prepared to reformat and
start from scratch to get the RTM version on. Try a spare machine or a
Virtual PC.


Based on your reply should I assume then that if I put the RC build on my
dev box I may have to reformat and start from scratch to get the RTM to run
on it as well? I definately would want to avoid that.

I am not familiar at all with virtual PCs but it sounds like a great idea.
What are some of the more popular products to do this? I tried googling but
only seem to come up with references to a product acquired by MS called
Virtual PC - however that sounds like it had to do with Macs, and I don't
run Macs.

Lastly - I'm quite confident that I'm not using any of the APIs that were
changed or deleted from Beta 2 to RTM. However I'm still wondering (based
on something I read a month ago) if I will have to recode or change the
structure of my code behind pages due to some new format or construct. Is
there any truth to this? If so does VS.NET convert the code behind for me?
Hope it does as that would be a lot of manual re-working. Anyway can you
let me know if ths is true? Thanks.

Steve
Nov 19 '05 #2
I don't see reformatting OR starting from scratch as being necessary. First,
on your dev box, as long as you correctly uninstall all previous
installations, according to the instructions in the Readme.htm files for the
new installation, you should have no trouble whatsoever with the new
installation. This is coming from someone who has installed at least 3
different beta versions (one beta 1 and two beta 2s) and the RC version on
my dev box at work and at home. Issues only arise when the readme is not
strictly followed. And these can be remedied. I have NEVER had to reformat.

Secondly, as far as the deployment platform is concerned, you're only
installing the Framework. All you need to do is uninstall the previous
version of the Framework and install the new version. The Framework install
is on the VS.Net installation CD. Again, I have done this numerous times
without incident.

It is important to note that the Framework does not change your Operating
System. It accesses the Operating System at run-time. It registers a number
of COM components on install. And it adds some information to the IIS
metabase on install.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Steve Franks" <pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote in message
news:Y-********************@comcast.com...
5) Like Kevin said, I'd try moving to the RC now - but I wouldn't put
it near a production machine unless you are prepared to reformat and
start from scratch to get the RTM version on. Try a spare machine or a
Virtual PC.


Based on your reply should I assume then that if I put the RC build on my
dev box I may have to reformat and start from scratch to get the RTM to
run on it as well? I definately would want to avoid that.

I am not familiar at all with virtual PCs but it sounds like a great
idea. What are some of the more popular products to do this? I tried
googling but only seem to come up with references to a product acquired by
MS called Virtual PC - however that sounds like it had to do with Macs,
and I don't run Macs.

Lastly - I'm quite confident that I'm not using any of the APIs that were
changed or deleted from Beta 2 to RTM. However I'm still wondering (based
on something I read a month ago) if I will have to recode or change the
structure of my code behind pages due to some new format or construct. Is
there any truth to this? If so does VS.NET convert the code behind for
me? Hope it does as that would be a lot of manual re-working. Anyway can
you let me know if ths is true? Thanks.

Steve

Nov 19 '05 #3
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:03:34 -0400, "Steve Franks"
<pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote:

I am not familiar at all with virtual PCs but it sounds like a great idea.
What are some of the more popular products to do this? I tried googling but
only seem to come up with references to a product acquired by MS called
Virtual PC - however that sounds like it had to do with Macs, and I don't
run Macs.

Yes, MS Virtual PC is a great product and works on Windows PCs.
Lastly - I'm quite confident that I'm not using any of the APIs that were
changed or deleted from Beta 2 to RTM. However I'm still wondering (based
on something I read a month ago) if I will have to recode or change the
structure of my code behind pages due to some new format or construct. Is
there any truth to this? If so does VS.NET convert the code behind for me?
Hope it does as that would be a lot of manual re-working. Anyway can you
let me know if ths is true? Thanks.


There were many features added [1] but I'm not aware of any structural
changes that would break code.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/be...s/default.aspx

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
Nov 19 '05 #4
Are you running Virtual PC 2004 or 2005? I'm a bit confused about the
differences. Basically I'm looking to run multiple instances of XP (and
perhaps other OSes) on my main dev box. 2004 sounds more appropriate, but
also seems like 2005 would be newer (more features, enhancements, fixes?)?

Thanks,

Steve

"Scott Allen" <sc***@nospam.odetocode.com> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...
Yes, MS Virtual PC is a great product and works on Windows PCs.

Nov 19 '05 #5
Are you running Virtual PC 2004 or 2005? I'm a bit confused about the
differences. Basically I'm looking to run multiple instances of XP (and
perhaps other OSes) on my main dev box. 2004 sounds more appropriate, but
also seems like 2005 would be newer (more features, enhancements, fixes?)?

Thanks,

Steve

"Scott Allen" <sc***@nospam.odetocode.com> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...
Yes, MS Virtual PC is a great product and works on Windows PCs.


Nov 19 '05 #6
If you plan on running Virtual PC, make sure you have plenty of extra RAM
and processor. Virtual PC does not set up a second boot sector, but runs
additional Operating Systems under your current Operating System. Each
additional Operating System is allocated a portion of your existing RAM,
processor, and hard drive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Steve Franks" <pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote in message
news:KN********************@comcast.com...
Are you running Virtual PC 2004 or 2005? I'm a bit confused about the
differences. Basically I'm looking to run multiple instances of XP (and
perhaps other OSes) on my main dev box. 2004 sounds more appropriate, but
also seems like 2005 would be newer (more features, enhancements, fixes?)?

Thanks,

Steve

"Scott Allen" <sc***@nospam.odetocode.com> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...
Yes, MS Virtual PC is a great product and works on Windows PCs.


Nov 19 '05 #7
Thanks. Which is best for developers looking to install multiple copies of
WinXP for dev? Virtual PC 2004 or 2005?

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OR****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
If you plan on running Virtual PC, make sure you have plenty of extra RAM
and processor. Virtual PC does not set up a second boot sector, but runs
additional Operating Systems under your current Operating System. Each
additional Operating System is allocated a portion of your existing RAM,
processor, and hard drive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Steve Franks" <pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote in message
news:KN********************@comcast.com...
Are you running Virtual PC 2004 or 2005? I'm a bit confused about the
differences. Basically I'm looking to run multiple instances of XP (and
perhaps other OSes) on my main dev box. 2004 sounds more appropriate,
but
also seems like 2005 would be newer (more features, enhancements,
fixes?)?

Thanks,

Steve

"Scott Allen" <sc***@nospam.odetocode.com> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...
Yes, MS Virtual PC is a great product and works on Windows PCs.



Nov 19 '05 #8
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:54:47 -0400, "Steve Franks"
<pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote:
Thanks. Which is best for developers looking to install multiple copies of
WinXP for dev? Virtual PC 2004 or 2005?

There is "Virtual PC 2004" and "Virtual Server 2005". If you have an
MSDN subscription you have access to both, if you don't have a
subscription and need to buy one of the 2, the Virtual PC product is,
I believe, going to be a lot less expensive.

Virtual PC will work just fine for you. It's a great environment for
testing and experimenting. I wrote a little article on the product
some time ago:
http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/92.aspx
--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

Nov 19 '05 #9
Thank you Scott. This was a very helpful overview.

Yes I have both Virtual PC 2004 and Virtual Server 2005. Do you know of any
advantages of using one vs. the other? Since Virtual Server 2005 is newer
I'm inclined to then think it is more powerful, modern, and has more
options. Yet I'm also wondering if it will have drawback considering my
needs are pretty basic and just want to use it for dev/testing and easily
have environments I can roll forward.

Steve
There is "Virtual PC 2004" and "Virtual Server 2005". If you have an
MSDN subscription you have access to both, if you don't have a
subscription and need to buy one of the 2, the Virtual PC product is,
I believe, going to be a lot less expensive.

Virtual PC will work just fine for you. It's a great environment for
testing and experimenting. I wrote a little article on the product
some time ago:
http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/92.aspx
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

Nov 19 '05 #10
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:29:00 -0400, "Steve Franks"
<pl****@postreplyhere.com> wrote:
Thank you Scott. This was a very helpful overview.

Yes I have both Virtual PC 2004 and Virtual Server 2005. Do you know of any
advantages of using one vs. the other? Since Virtual Server 2005 is newer
I'm inclined to then think it is more powerful, modern, and has more
options. Yet I'm also wondering if it will have drawback considering my
needs are pretty basic and just want to use it for dev/testing and easily
have environments I can roll forward.


Hey Steve:

The two products have a different feature set. I'm not sure one is
more powerful than the other, rather they are intended to be used
differently. VPC is more 'interactive', while Virtual Server is
intended to spin up a machine and run it unattended for weeks and
months at a time.

Here is an excerpt from
http://blogs.msdn.com/david.wang/arc...al_Server.aspx
:

Virtual PC
- Rich GUI client for local interactive use.
- Low security/High interactivity (Shared Folders, Drag/Drop,
Cut/Paste).
- No Automation/Scripting Interface.
- Client-oriented features (Sound Card in VM).
- All Guests use one CPU on the host.

Virtual Server
- Thin web-based admin and VMRC client for remote/headless
administrative use.
- High security/Low interactivity (nothing "shared" between Guests and
Host).
- Full Automation/Scripting Interface with COM.
- Server-oriented features (Virtual SCSI emulation, per VM CPU
throttling, VS Security model for delegation. But no Sounc Card).
- Guests use all CPUs on the host, but each Guest still sees and uses
only one CPU.

The file formats are compatible, so you can always try out both.

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
Nov 19 '05 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

10 posts views Thread by Rich Wallace | last post: by
1 post views Thread by rAinDeEr | last post: by
reply views Thread by rosydwin | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.