I have an ASP.NET app (all VB code) that is ready to deploy. I’ve created a
Windows Installer package for it, which is working, but I'm wondering whether
this is really the best approach. I'd appreciate any input from someone with
more experience in deployment packages, etc.
Some people don't seem to think that using an installer package is really
necessary for a web app, since you don't typically have to repeat the
installation many times. But this app uses two Class Libraries (.dll) files
that need to be shared with other apps and I want them in the Global Assembly
Cache. I see where the Microsoft recommendation is that you should use the
installer for this. (One of these dlls also makes calls to several third
party dlls, so they need to be in the GAC as well.) Since I need to release
this for beta-testing and then onto another server for production later on, I
really like the idea of delivering a package to the administrators and let
them take it from there. Otherwise, I think we're looking at installing
gacutil.exe on both the test and production boxes and somebody having to
remember to install dlls and then uninstall and reinstall them each time
something changes. But I remain open to suggestions.
One thing I've noticed is that I seemingly have to “publish” the web site in
order to create the compiled code to be deployed. (I haven't found any other
way to compile code-behind modules without writing a command-line .bat file.
But I haven't found a way to use Studio 2005 to generate command-line build
to use as an example to work from, like I did with Studio 2003. Is there
really no way to do a release build on a web application in Studio 2005, or
am I just missing something?).
However, this turned out OK. I just published the whole durn things to a
folder on my own C: drive and then included all the files that the publish
step produced in the Target Machine folders of my Setup Project. Then I made
sure all the dlls I need are there and the ones that need to be shared are in
the GAC folder in the setup project. In fact, it makes it easier. You don’t
have to go through the home directory and pick out all the individual files
to exclude code-behind source, etc. Whatever gets published, gets deployed.
So, this is presenting itself as a viable option. However, I made some code
changes, republished, and then went to rebuild the setup project. The second
published version changed the names of the dlls containing the compiled
code-behind. Does this mean I have to rework the setup project every time I
need to make changes and redeploy? (I see where there's an option to publish
with "fixed naming" but that produces a plethora of "single page assemblies"
that I don't especially feel like dealing with either.)
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you'd like to share.
--
Richard Laird, MCSD.NET
