By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,978 Members | 1,373 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,978 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Error executing version of Net Framework

P: n/a
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih

Jan 26 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
29 Replies


P: n/a
If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih

Jan 26 '07 #2

P: n/a

"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih

I am also new. I think within IIS, if you right click on your SITE which
you have setup and choose PROPERTIES, you will find a ASP.NET tab which has
the options. if you dont see the ASP.NET tab, you havent installed .NET 2.0
framework.

Thats how I get it to work.

G.

Jan 26 '07 #3

P: n/a
Peter Wrote,
If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:
If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih


Jan 26 '07 #4

P: n/a
Gary Wrote,

I think within IIS, if you right click on your SITE which
you have setup and choose PROPERTIES, you will find a ASP.NET tab which has
the options. if you dont see the ASP.NET tab, you havent installed .NET 2.0
framework.
---
Thanks Gary for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0.
I can't touch the IIS because the only person who can setup IIS on our web
site is the admin of our provider. Perhaps I could ask our provider to set
the NET framework 2.0 as the default setting. But I want to find a way
programmatically.
It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how to set
it up.

--
Hermawih
"Gary" wrote:
>
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih


I am also new. I think within IIS, if you right click on your SITE which
you have setup and choose PROPERTIES, you will find a ASP.NET tab which has
the options. if you dont see the ASP.NET tab, you havent installed .NET 2.0
framework.

Thats how I get it to work.

G.

Jan 26 '07 #5

P: n/a
Don't think so. I may very well be wrong, but I think you will have to ask
your ISP to configure your site to use .NET Framework 2.0.
Peter

"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:FA**********************************@microsof t.com...
Peter Wrote,
>If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.

Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the
application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I
have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:
>If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microso ft.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error
about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1
and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih



Jan 26 '07 #6

P: n/a
It is not in the web.config and must be set through IIS or through a
command-line tool. In short, you need to ensure that your host has your site
set for 2.0 as you cannot change this, only they can do this. It's a fairly
easy change and most hosts are pretty quick about it.
--

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Former Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:FA**********************************@microsof t.com...
Peter Wrote,
>If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.

Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the
application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I
have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:
>If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microso ft.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error
about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1
and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih



Jan 26 '07 #7

P: n/a
Hello Mark,

I searched that issue on MSDN "Side by Side Execution". It gave me so much
information on that. MSDN suggests that I use SupportedRuntime element on
web.config.

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

But It did not work. Perhaps I did it wrong or maybe that can't be done
using web.config.

I am going to follow Mark's suggestion for easy way out by asking our
provider to change the default setting into version 2.0.

Thanks all for sharing.
--
Hermawih
"Mark Fitzpatrick" wrote:
It is not in the web.config and must be set through IIS or through a
command-line tool. In short, you need to ensure that your host has your site
set for 2.0 as you cannot change this, only they can do this. It's a fairly
easy change and most hosts are pretty quick about it.
--

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Former Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:FA**********************************@microsof t.com...
Peter Wrote,
If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the
application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I
have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:
If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error
about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1
and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih



Jan 26 '07 #8

P: n/a
Thanks you all for sharing.

I just asked our provider to change the setting. In only a few minutes the
problems gone.

--
Hermawih

Jan 26 '07 #9

P: n/a
supportedRuntime version only works for WinForms/console applications.

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/
===================================
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:C5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello Mark,

I searched that issue on MSDN "Side by Side Execution". It gave me so much
information on that. MSDN suggests that I use SupportedRuntime element on
web.config.

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

But It did not work. Perhaps I did it wrong or maybe that can't be done
using web.config.

I am going to follow Mark's suggestion for easy way out by asking our
provider to change the default setting into version 2.0.

Thanks all for sharing.
--
Hermawih
"Mark Fitzpatrick" wrote:
>It is not in the web.config and must be set through IIS or through a
command-line tool. In short, you need to ensure that your host has your site
set for 2.0 as you cannot change this, only they can do this. It's a fairly
easy change and most hosts are pretty quick about it.
--

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Former Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:FA**********************************@microso ft.com...
Peter Wrote,

If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.

Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the
application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I
have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:

If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microso ft.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error
about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1
and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih




Jan 26 '07 #10

P: n/a
I just asked our provider to change the setting. In only a few minutes
the
problems gone.

Who do you use for hosting? I use oneandone (useless) and Rackspace
(Fanatical!!!). One and One are slowly but surely being dumped over time.

G.

Jan 26 '07 #11

P: n/a
Hello Juan

Thanks for information. That explains why it didn't work for ASP NET pages.
I think I can't find any information on the article about it. Well perhaps
it is there. I read only some portion of the articles.

--
Hermawih

"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
supportedRuntime version only works for WinForms/console applications.

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/
===================================
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:C5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello Mark,

I searched that issue on MSDN "Side by Side Execution". It gave me so much
information on that. MSDN suggests that I use SupportedRuntime element on
web.config.

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

But It did not work. Perhaps I did it wrong or maybe that can't be done
using web.config.

I am going to follow Mark's suggestion for easy way out by asking our
provider to change the default setting into version 2.0.

Thanks all for sharing.
--
Hermawih

"Mark Fitzpatrick" wrote:
It is not in the web.config and must be set through IIS or through a
command-line tool. In short, you need to ensure that your host has your site
set for 2.0 as you cannot change this, only they can do this. It's a fairly
easy change and most hosts are pretty quick about it.
--

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Former Microsoft FrontPage MVP 199?-2006
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:FA**********************************@microsof t.com...
Peter Wrote,

If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.

Thanks Peter for replying. Our provider has two NET Framework 1.1 and
2.0.
But perhaps because of the default setting set by provider, the
application
was run on 1.1.

It got to be a way to change that default setting programmatically. I
have
a feeling that it got to be on web.config. But I just don't know how.

--
Hermawih

"Peter Bradley" wrote:

If you developed using .NET Framework, 2.0, you must deploy it to a
machine
that is also running .NET 2.0.

I think your first step is to ask your provider if the .NET Framework
version 2.0 is available on the server hosting your site.
Peter
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:86**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello,

Please anybody help me.
I have only a little experience with web development.
I created simple project using ASP NET 2.0 (VS 2005)
It works fine on local computer.

When I tried to run the application on the web, it give me an error
about
net framework version information.
"Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300;
ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300"
I think the problem is because running ASP NET 2.0 application but the
application was executed using 1.1.

Our Web Provider has two NET Frameworks to choose: NET Framework 1.1
and
2.0.

How could I set up the application to run on NET Framework 2.0 ??

Thank you.

--
Hermawih




Jan 27 '07 #12

P: n/a
"Gary" wrote:
Who do you use for hosting?

-
Brinkster- I like Brinkster's live support.

--
Hermawih

"Gary" wrote:
I just asked our provider to change the setting. In only a few minutes
the
problems gone.


Who do you use for hosting? I use oneandone (useless) and Rackspace
(Fanatical!!!). One and One are slowly but surely being dumped over time.

G.

Jan 27 '07 #13

P: n/a
Hello Hermawih,

For ASP.NET web application, the runtime version configuration is
controlled by the IIS applicatoin virtual directory's service extension
mapping. Since you're using a public web hoster, I suggest contact the web
hoster to adjust the ASP.NET version of your application's virtual
directory. Based on the error message you mentioned in the first reply,
the virtual directory's extension mapping is not correctly configured as
ASP.NET 2.0.

BTW, the following configuratino schema is for non-ASP.NET application(such
as console, winform....).

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Jan 29 '07 #14

P: n/a
Hello Steven,
Thanks for the information and confimation about the " supportedRuntime
version" element. Our experiment with that simple project is doing okay.
Thanks for that revolutionized way of creating web application. ASP Net
really makes desktop developer like us an easy initial step of learning it.
We are overwhelmed with our first web project. Well It is still in simple
state but with that small success gave us so much encouragement for further
learning. Actually, some people have used it. Thanks for the email
notification you sent.

Hermawih
"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

For ASP.NET web application, the runtime version configuration is
controlled by the IIS applicatoin virtual directory's service extension
mapping. Since you're using a public web hoster, I suggest contact the web
hoster to adjust the ASP.NET version of your application's virtual
directory. Based on the error message you mentioned in the first reply,
the virtual directory's extension mapping is not correctly configured as
ASP.NET 2.0.

BTW, the following configuratino schema is for non-ASP.NET application(such
as console, winform....).

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Jan 31 '07 #15

P: n/a
Steven Cheng Wrote,

If there is anything else we can help, please feel free to followup in the
newsgroup.

---

Hi Steven.

Actually there is something that confused us.
we are trying to improve the performance of the application.

For simplicity sake, let me create some simple illustration(fictious sample)

- 1 table ( ID,Customer Name, Country,Description)
- 1 dropdownlist for filtering. ( showing all the country in the world)
- 1 list box for showing the list of available data. (value = ID , Text =
Customer Name)
- 1 text box for showing data ( show the description of the Customer)

A. When someone select a value from dropdownlist, ie Japan, the application
will select records with that criteria and populate the listbox with the data
( ID and Customer Name - from Japan)
B. when someone select a value from the list box, the application will show
the description of the customer.
First Attempt:
At our first web form, form1, when someone clicked on the listbox,
application will get it from the database server based on the ID and show the
description on the text box. We are using datareader to get the data. So
the application will always try to connect to the server to get the data.

Actually there is nothing wrong with the application until someone comments
about the slow response from the server.

Second Attempt:
Based on that complaint, I create another approach.

A I create data adapter and dataset.
B. After someone select a value from the dpl ( dropdownlist),ie Japan,
application will populate the listbox with customers from Japan and
fill the dataset with all the customer from Japan.
C. When someone click the list box, instead of connecting to the server, now
the application
try to get the customer description from the dataset.

' gDs = global dataset

Dim dt As DataTable = gDs.Tables("tblCustFilter")

For Each row As DataRow In dt.Rows
For Each col As DataColumn In dt.Columns
' Show the selected description user chosen from listbox
If row("ID") = Me.lstCustList.SelectedItem.Value Then
Me.txtDescription.Text = row("Description")
End If
Next
Next

At this attempt, I think I have created disconnected recordset.
The idea is not to connect to server all the time and use that XML
representation of the table

This approach is also run without any trouble.
I don't see any increase performance on this second approach.
Then I come up with the idea by setting the property of the listbox of
AutoPostback = false
It did not give the value I expected. I come up with the third approach.

Third Attempt:
A. I set the listbox property of AutoPostback = false
B. I add a button
then when some one click the button, the application will get the data
from dataset.

Dim dt As DataTable = gDs.Tables("tblCustFilter")
dim flgfound as boolean
flgFound = false

For Each row As DataRow In dt.Rows
For Each col As DataColumn In dt.Columns
' Show the selected description user chosen from listbox
If row("ID") = Me.lstCustList.SelectedItem.Value Then
Me.txtDescription.Text = row("Description")
flgFound = true
End If

Next
' After the value is found then get out
if flgFound then exit for
Next

Questions?

I think that the second approach took longer than the first.
I don't see any increase performance on the third attempt even I set the
autopostback = false
and set the button property of usesubmitBehaviour= false
I think I still like the first approach because it needs only one click.

1. How do I increate the performance of the application ?
2. Why the third attempt did not show any increase performance ?
Anybody has any tips to improve performance ?

Thanks for reading this rather lengthy description.

Hermawih
----

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

For ASP.NET web application, the runtime version configuration is
controlled by the IIS applicatoin virtual directory's service extension
mapping. Since you're using a public web hoster, I suggest contact the web
hoster to adjust the ASP.NET version of your application's virtual
directory. Based on the error message you mentioned in the first reply,
the virtual directory's extension mapping is not correctly configured as
ASP.NET 2.0.

BTW, the following configuratino schema is for non-ASP.NET application(such
as console, winform....).

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.5072"/>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
</configuration>

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 1 '07 #16

P: n/a
Thanks for your followup Hermawih,

Based on your description, I think your current concern is that how to
improve the performance when a user select a certain data item in the
Listbox and need to display the description of this item, correct?

Currently, what you've tried is

** postback the page whenever a user select a item in listbox and query the
database and set the queried value to textbox

** still postback the page whenever a user select a certain item in
listbox, but instead of getting description by querying the backend
database, you read the cached DataSet(in server memory) for data,

I'm wondering how much is the size of each record's description? Is it
possible that we embed all the items(of the same country) in page's
response and make it hidden. and when a certain record is selected we use
client-side script to display it in textbox?

Also, for server-side caching, are you using the ASP.NET Cache storage? I
suggest you cache the datatable for records of each country (but set a
expire timeout). Thus, whenever your page postback to query descrption of a
record, you always try looking up the Cache(for the DataTable that mapped
to a certain country). if cache is empty, you query backedn db to fullfil
the cache. for such cache scenario, it will add memory presure of the
server machine, however, we have to make the choice whether we should
improve the response time or memory usage.

Please let me know your opinion or if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 2 '07 #17

P: n/a
Thanks Steven,

Steven wrote,
------------------
Currently, what you've tried is

** postback the page whenever a user select a item in listbox and query the
database and set the queried value to textbox

** still postback the page whenever a user select a certain item in
listbox, but instead of getting description by querying the backend
database, you read the cached DataSet(in server memory) for data,
-------------------------------------------------

Yes those are what I did.

I have been research on this topic about performance for web application.
Some of the suggestions are:

A. Microsoft suggest not to use "AutoeventWireup"
B. Client Scripting
C. Caching
D. ....
E. ......

A. Autoeventwireup
Microsoft suggest not to use autoeventwireup because
the code will be executed twice. One by NET and one by VS.
The problem: if I set this to false then all the code on Page_load are
not executed.

B. Client scripting.
I understand the reason.

C. Caching

Steven wrote,

Also, for server-side caching, are you using the ASP.NET Cache storage? I
suggest you cache the datatable for records of each country (but set a
expire timeout). Thus, whenever your page postback to query descrption of a
record, you always try looking up the Cache(for the DataTable that mapped
to a certain country). if cache is empty, you query backedn db to fullfil
the cache. for such cache scenario, it will add memory presure of the
server machine, however, we have to make the choice whether we should
improve the response time or memory usage.

( Thanks Steven. I just realized the mistake, I did not cache it.)
----------------

I also was given this advice somewhere.
But It is not clear to me what kind situations that I should choose one
over another.
I can't find yet a detail discussion about this. Let me make a wild guess.

I think most important things to consider are:

A1. The number of people connected to the server.
A2. How long the people will be connected to the server on average.
A3. How large the size of the data to cache. ( That is why you mentioned
about the size of description field )

If there are many people connect to the server and on average they stay long
then I should choose direct connection to the server because in this scenario
it will use much memory. But if few people connect to the server then I
should choose
caching. Can I say that?

-----

After doing some research and thought, actually the real problem is my
desktop mindset. I use this kind of technique on my desktop application.
Without too much consiration I apply this thing into our web project. I think
the approach should be listing all the data based on the user's selection and
user can choose and open a new form. The same technique applied by all the
search engine. I think I am going to use datagrid and paging for that
purpose.

I have been reading a book "Distributed Data Applications with ASP.NET". It
is an excellent book discussing about client scripting, business objects,
data tier and so on. With many examples, that book really helps me learning
ASP NET faster. Yes the idea to change the approach after reading that book.

--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Thanks for your followup Hermawih,

Based on your description, I think your current concern is that how to
improve the performance when a user select a certain data item in the
Listbox and need to display the description of this item, correct?

Currently, what you've tried is

** postback the page whenever a user select a item in listbox and query the
database and set the queried value to textbox

** still postback the page whenever a user select a certain item in
listbox, but instead of getting description by querying the backend
database, you read the cached DataSet(in server memory) for data,

I'm wondering how much is the size of each record's description? Is it
possible that we embed all the items(of the same country) in page's
response and make it hidden. and when a certain record is selected we use
client-side script to display it in textbox?

Also, for server-side caching, are you using the ASP.NET Cache storage? I
suggest you cache the datatable for records of each country (but set a
expire timeout). Thus, whenever your page postback to query descrption of a
record, you always try looking up the Cache(for the DataTable that mapped
to a certain country). if cache is empty, you query backedn db to fullfil
the cache. for such cache scenario, it will add memory presure of the
server machine, however, we have to make the choice whether we should
improve the response time or memory usage.

Please let me know your opinion or if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 3 '07 #18

P: n/a
Thanks for your response Hermawih,

For the "AutowireupEvent" attribute, you do not need to care it too much,
just keep the default setting. The double event handler registering will
occur only when you are developing ASP.NET page through VB.NET code(since
VB.NET will register event handler in the eventhandler's declartion code
also).

As for the following things you mentioned
=====================
also was given this advice somewhere.
But It is not clear to me what kind situations that I should choose one
over another.
I can't find yet a detail discussion about this. Let me make a wild guess.

I think most important things to consider are:

A1. The number of people connected to the server.
A2. How long the people will be connected to the server on average.
A3. How large the size of the data to cache. ( That is why you mentioned
about the size of description field )

If there are many people connect to the server and on average they stay
long
then I should choose direct connection to the server because in this
scenario
it will use much memory. But if few people connect to the server then I
should choose
caching. Can I say that?
=======================

My understanding is as below:

For ASP.NET server-side application's performance, generally, we would care
serveral things, they are response time, throughput and stability.

** response time will be affected by your page's processing time, and the
page's response content size. For example, if a page contains a long-time
data base accessing operation, the response time will be long also. Or if
the page's response content size is large(contains large viewstate or
content in page), it will also make the response time large. That's why it
is recommended that we try shrink the page size or avoid using viewstate
if possible.

**For page throughput, it also some want related to the response time.
Because all the ASP.NET requests are processed by thread-pool thread picked
up from threadpool. and for each process, it has only one .NET managed
threadpool and the max allowed nubmer of threads. So when those pooled
threads are all used(by some long-run task), other sequential requests will
be pending and affect the entire application's throughput. Here is a good
webcast introducing ASP.NET threading:

#Support WebCast: Microsoft ASP.NET Threading
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/820913/en-us

**For stability, mostly it is determined by some of the performance status
of the application. Such as memory usage, pending requests or deadlocks....
There is settings(for IIS6, it is in the application pool) indicate when
the number exceed certain limitation ASP.NET application process will be
recycled.

You can review the performance of your application based on these basic
rules together with those best practice aricles you can find in MSDN
library.

Hope this helps further.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



Feb 5 '07 #19

P: n/a
Thanks Steven,

Much better explanation than any other that I have found so far. Thanks you
for that detail explanation. I downloaded the powerpoint presentation and
will play it latter for further study.

Thanks so much for your time.
--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Thanks for your response Hermawih,

For the "AutowireupEvent" attribute, you do not need to care it too much,
just keep the default setting. The double event handler registering will
occur only when you are developing ASP.NET page through VB.NET code(since
VB.NET will register event handler in the eventhandler's declartion code
also).

As for the following things you mentioned
=====================
also was given this advice somewhere.
But It is not clear to me what kind situations that I should choose one
over another.
I can't find yet a detail discussion about this. Let me make a wild guess.

I think most important things to consider are:

A1. The number of people connected to the server.
A2. How long the people will be connected to the server on average.
A3. How large the size of the data to cache. ( That is why you mentioned
about the size of description field )

If there are many people connect to the server and on average they stay
long
then I should choose direct connection to the server because in this
scenario
it will use much memory. But if few people connect to the server then I
should choose
caching. Can I say that?
=======================

My understanding is as below:

For ASP.NET server-side application's performance, generally, we would care
serveral things, they are response time, throughput and stability.

** response time will be affected by your page's processing time, and the
page's response content size. For example, if a page contains a long-time
data base accessing operation, the response time will be long also. Or if
the page's response content size is large(contains large viewstate or
content in page), it will also make the response time large. That's why it
is recommended that we try shrink the page size or avoid using viewstate
if possible.

**For page throughput, it also some want related to the response time.
Because all the ASP.NET requests are processed by thread-pool thread picked
up from threadpool. and for each process, it has only one .NET managed
threadpool and the max allowed nubmer of threads. So when those pooled
threads are all used(by some long-run task), other sequential requests will
be pending and affect the entire application's throughput. Here is a good
webcast introducing ASP.NET threading:

#Support WebCast: Microsoft ASP.NET Threading
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/820913/en-us

**For stability, mostly it is determined by some of the performance status
of the application. Such as memory usage, pending requests or deadlocks....
There is settings(for IIS6, it is in the application pool) indicate when
the number exceed certain limitation ASP.NET application process will be
recycled.

You can review the performance of your application based on these basic
rules together with those best practice aricles you can find in MSDN
library.

Hope this helps further.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



Feb 5 '07 #20

P: n/a
You're welcome Hermawih,

Feel free to post here whenever there is anything we can help.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 6 '07 #21

P: n/a
Hi Steven,

I have a problem with my custom field.
Because grid view does not support long text. I created a class to show
long text for my grid view. It works locally. But when I published it as
dll, I received error message like this below:

Unknown server tag 'custom:LongTextField'.
<Columns>

Line 415: <custom:LongTextField

I created this declaration on my web form.
<%@ Register TagPrefix="custom" Namespace="TextControls"%>

Here is grid view declaration:
<asp:GridView ID="grvData" runat="server"
AllowPaging="True"
AutoGenerateColumns="False"
EmptyDataText ="No matching data."
Width="525px"
PagerSettings-Mode ="NumericFirstLast"
PageSize="10"
PagerSettings-Position ="Bottom"
PagerStyle-HorizontalAlign="Left"
OnPageIndexChanging="grvData_PageIndexChanging" >

<Columns>
<custom:LongTextField
DataField="Data"
Width="520px" Height="220px" HeaderText="Data" />
</Columns>
<RowStyle Wrap="True" />
<SelectedRowStyle Wrap="True" />
<PagerSettings Mode="NumericFirstLast" />
<PagerStyle HorizontalAlign="Left" />
</asp:GridView>

After many attempts, I finally tried to create App_code folder on my server
and put the class ( as vb file) on that folder, surprisingly the problem was
gone. My question is why publishing that class as App_Code.dll did not work
but publishing the class as vb file in folder App_code works ? I would like
to put that class as dll and not as vb file. Thanks.

--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
You're welcome Hermawih,

Feel free to post here whenever there is anything we can help.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 7 '07 #22

P: n/a
Hello Hermawih,

Thanks for your followup.

For your custom GridView column problem, I've just performed some test in
my local environment. It seems my custom GridView (put in App_Code
directory) can be correctly used in aspx page(no matter I precompile the
site or not). My test class and the regsiter directive is very simple as
below:

========class=========
namespace GridViewColumns
{
public class SimpleGridViewField : DataControlField
{
public SimpleGridViewField()
{
}

public override void InitializeCell(DataControlFieldCell cell,
DataControlCellType cellType, DataControlRowState rowState, int rowIndex)
{
Label lbl = new Label();
lbl.ID = "lblInput";
lbl.Text = "Input: ";

TextBox txt = new TextBox();
txt.ID = "txtInput";

cell.Controls.Add(lbl);
cell.Controls.Add(txt);
}

protected override DataControlField CreateField()
{
return new SimpleGridViewField();
}
}
}
========================================

===============
<%@ Register Namespace="GridViewColumns" TagPrefix="cust" %>
===============

So I think there may have some difference between my test and your
application. Are you using the "Publish Web Site" to precompile the web
application or use "Web Deployment project" ? I've tried both cases and
the custom gridview column seems work well.

Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I missed.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




Feb 8 '07 #23

P: n/a
Hello Steven,

Thanks Steven.

Here were the things that I did.

1. Locally on my dekstop using VS Profesional 2005, I put the class on folder
App_Code: LongTextField.vb.
(This class is the class I adopted from a book "ASP NET 2.0" by Stephen
walther from page 554. As much as I want to upload it into this discussion
forum, I think I have no right since the code is not entirely mine. And
also, I think this problem is not related to coding problem.)

2. I built the web project and published the project on local folder.
I copied from local bin directory on that folder into bin folder on my
website ( on my provider) I received that error message when I tried to call
that web form.

3. After several failed attempts, I finally come up with the idea of
creating App_Code on my web site.
A. I deleted the App_Code.dll on bin folder.
B. I put the class longtextfield.vb on App_code folder.

I called that web form again and the problem was solved.

I have no idea what is wrong? Why the application throw me error message
when using App_code.dll but works fine when using the vb file.

But here are the facts:

A. Locally, I am using Windows XP Home edition SP2 with Microsoft Net
Framework 2.0.50727. My computer does not use IIS.
B. My Provider is using Windows server with IIS and with Microsoft Net
Framework 2.0.50727.
Steven, as my understanding, you have tried experimentation on your local
environment. Is it possible to try to upload to internet for testing, doing
the same thing as I did? I am not even sure if that will make a different.

Perhaps I should try to upload locally in different computer with IIS
installed.
This problem could be hard to detect what is the solution or what is the
root of the problem.

Best Regards,
--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

Thanks for your followup.

For your custom GridView column problem, I've just performed some test in
my local environment. It seems my custom GridView (put in App_Code
directory) can be correctly used in aspx page(no matter I precompile the
site or not). My test class and the regsiter directive is very simple as
below:

========class=========
namespace GridViewColumns
{
public class SimpleGridViewField : DataControlField
{
public SimpleGridViewField()
{
}

public override void InitializeCell(DataControlFieldCell cell,
DataControlCellType cellType, DataControlRowState rowState, int rowIndex)
{
Label lbl = new Label();
lbl.ID = "lblInput";
lbl.Text = "Input: ";

TextBox txt = new TextBox();
txt.ID = "txtInput";

cell.Controls.Add(lbl);
cell.Controls.Add(txt);
}

protected override DataControlField CreateField()
{
return new SimpleGridViewField();
}
}
}
========================================

===============
<%@ Register Namespace="GridViewColumns" TagPrefix="cust" %>
===============

So I think there may have some difference between my test and your
application. Are you using the "Publish Web Site" to precompile the web
application or use "Web Deployment project" ? I've tried both cases and
the custom gridview column seems work well.

Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I missed.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




Feb 8 '07 #24

P: n/a
Hello Steven,

I just realized that when I copied dll from my local bin folder into bin
folder on my web site, I have never register dll as usually I did with COM
component. Is the issue related with the registration process?

Steven, could you give me links to articles discussing,

A. Publishing component .
B. How to create separate dll for different class? I always get
App_code.dll after I publish my project even there are two vb file on
App_code folder.

I will also try to search this topics but perhaps you could get me there
faster.

Thanks Steven.
--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

Thanks for your followup.

For your custom GridView column problem, I've just performed some test in
my local environment. It seems my custom GridView (put in App_Code
directory) can be correctly used in aspx page(no matter I precompile the
site or not). My test class and the regsiter directive is very simple as
below:

========class=========
namespace GridViewColumns
{
public class SimpleGridViewField : DataControlField
{
public SimpleGridViewField()
{
}

public override void InitializeCell(DataControlFieldCell cell,
DataControlCellType cellType, DataControlRowState rowState, int rowIndex)
{
Label lbl = new Label();
lbl.ID = "lblInput";
lbl.Text = "Input: ";

TextBox txt = new TextBox();
txt.ID = "txtInput";

cell.Controls.Add(lbl);
cell.Controls.Add(txt);
}

protected override DataControlField CreateField()
{
return new SimpleGridViewField();
}
}
}
========================================

===============
<%@ Register Namespace="GridViewColumns" TagPrefix="cust" %>
===============

So I think there may have some difference between my test and your
application. Are you using the "Publish Web Site" to precompile the web
application or use "Web Deployment project" ? I've tried both cases and
the custom gridview column seems work well.

Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I missed.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.




Feb 9 '07 #25

P: n/a
re:
I just realized that when I copied dll from my local bin folder into bin
folder on my web site, I have never register dll as usually I did with COM
component. Is the issue related with the registration process?
You don't need to register dll's in the bin directory.

..Net Framework assemblies have an embedded manifest
which allows applications that call them to identify them.

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/
===================================
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:88**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello Steven,

I just realized that when I copied dll from my local bin folder into bin
folder on my web site, I have never register dll as usually I did with COM
component. Is the issue related with the registration process?

Steven, could you give me links to articles discussing,

A. Publishing component .
B. How to create separate dll for different class? I always get
App_code.dll after I publish my project even there are two vb file on
App_code folder.

I will also try to search this topics but perhaps you could get me there
faster.

Thanks Steven.
--
Hermawih

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
>Hello Hermawih,

Thanks for your followup.

For your custom GridView column problem, I've just performed some test in
my local environment. It seems my custom GridView (put in App_Code
directory) can be correctly used in aspx page(no matter I precompile the
site or not). My test class and the regsiter directive is very simple as
below:

========class=========
namespace GridViewColumns
{
public class SimpleGridViewField : DataControlField
{
public SimpleGridViewField()
{
}

public override void InitializeCell(DataControlFieldCell cell,
DataControlCellType cellType, DataControlRowState rowState, int rowIndex)
{
Label lbl = new Label();
lbl.ID = "lblInput";
lbl.Text = "Input: ";

TextBox txt = new TextBox();
txt.ID = "txtInput";

cell.Controls.Add(lbl);
cell.Controls.Add(txt);
}

protected override DataControlField CreateField()
{
return new SimpleGridViewField();
}
}
}
========================================

===============
<%@ Register Namespace="GridViewColumns" TagPrefix="cust" %>
===============

So I think there may have some difference between my test and your
application. Are you using the "Publish Web Site" to precompile the web
application or use "Web Deployment project" ? I've tried both cases and
the custom gridview column seems work well.

Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I missed.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.





Feb 9 '07 #26

P: n/a
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
You don't need to register dll's in the bin directory.

..Net Framework assemblies have an embedded manifest
which allows applications that call them to identify them.
Thanks for the information.

--
Hermawih

"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
re:
I just realized that when I copied dll from my local bin folder into bin
folder on my web site, I have never register dll as usually I did with COM
component. Is the issue related with the registration process?

You don't need to register dll's in the bin directory.

..Net Framework assemblies have an embedded manifest
which allows applications that call them to identify them.

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/
===================================
"Hermawih" <he******@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:88**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hello Steven,

I just realized that when I copied dll from my local bin folder into bin
folder on my web site, I have never register dll as usually I did with COM
component. Is the issue related with the registration process?

Steven, could you give me links to articles discussing,

A. Publishing component .
B. How to create separate dll for different class? I always get
App_code.dll after I publish my project even there are two vb file on
App_code folder.

I will also try to search this topics but perhaps you could get me there
faster.

Thanks Steven.
--
Hermawih


"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

Thanks for your followup.

For your custom GridView column problem, I've just performed some test in
my local environment. It seems my custom GridView (put in App_Code
directory) can be correctly used in aspx page(no matter I precompile the
site or not). My test class and the regsiter directive is very simple as
below:

========class=========
namespace GridViewColumns
{
public class SimpleGridViewField : DataControlField
{
public SimpleGridViewField()
{
}

public override void InitializeCell(DataControlFieldCell cell,
DataControlCellType cellType, DataControlRowState rowState, int rowIndex)
{
Label lbl = new Label();
lbl.ID = "lblInput";
lbl.Text = "Input: ";

TextBox txt = new TextBox();
txt.ID = "txtInput";

cell.Controls.Add(lbl);
cell.Controls.Add(txt);
}

protected override DataControlField CreateField()
{
return new SimpleGridViewField();
}
}
}
========================================

===============
<%@ Register Namespace="GridViewColumns" TagPrefix="cust" %>
===============

So I think there may have some difference between my test and your
application. Are you using the "Publish Web Site" to precompile the web
application or use "Web Deployment project" ? I've tried both cases and
the custom gridview column seems work well.

Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I missed.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.






Feb 9 '07 #27

P: n/a
Hello Hermawih,

As Juan has mentioned, there is no need to regsiter .NET managed
assembly(as COM do). For ASP.NET application, those private (no
strong-named) assemblies can simply be put in "bin" sub dir while
strong-named assemblies can be put in GAC. And the problem in your
scenario is caused by some classes defined in App_Code class, so I don't
think this is related to your deploy steps.

BTW, there is a 'web deployment project' for ASP.NET 2.0 that can help make
application precompilation and deploy more convenient, you can try this to
see whether the problem still remains.

#Visual Studio 2005 Web Deployment Projects
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336619.aspx

and still as I mentioned previously, if possible, you can try creating a
simplified project(with just a necessary page and the class in App_code
dir) which can repro the problem. You can send it to me (through the email
in my signature by removing "online") so that I can test it locally.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 12 '07 #28

P: n/a
Hello Steven,

Thanks for the links. I have not learned that in detail. I will read
slowly latter.
Actually My projects is simple since It has only one form and one class and
one module.

About the problem, I think I will ignore it for the time being since It is
working anyway using the vb file. My focus right now is searching sample for
simple message board ( discussion forum) with ASP NET 2.0 and VB NET.

I have tried some of them but two of them just too advanced ( Community
server and Dotnetnuke). Of cource they are excellent but I want to have a
simple thing for me to learn. I downloaded a simple that I have in mind but
it is in C#. I have a simple thing in VB NET but it did not work. I have
pretty good sample from a book but it is in NET 1.1 and when I converted to
2.0 I can't make it work.

I am still searching for it. If you have any information about the sample
for simple discussion forum sample project with ASP NET and VB NET, please
let me know.

Once again, many thanks for your help.

--
Hermawih
http://www.bocsoft.net
"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
Hello Hermawih,

As Juan has mentioned, there is no need to regsiter .NET managed
assembly(as COM do). For ASP.NET application, those private (no
strong-named) assemblies can simply be put in "bin" sub dir while
strong-named assemblies can be put in GAC. And the problem in your
scenario is caused by some classes defined in App_Code class, so I don't
think this is related to your deploy steps.

BTW, there is a 'web deployment project' for ASP.NET 2.0 that can help make
application precompilation and deploy more convenient, you can try this to
see whether the problem still remains.

#Visual Studio 2005 Web Deployment Projects
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336619.aspx

and still as I mentioned previously, if possible, you can try creating a
simplified project(with just a necessary page and the class in App_code
dir) which can repro the problem. You can send it to me (through the email
in my signature by removing "online") so that I can test it locally.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Feb 14 '07 #29

P: n/a
Hello Hermawih,

I've also searched the web and did find some forum/content mangement system
framework, however, seems most of them are C# based. For C# to VB.NET code
conversion, there are many web page based code converters over web,
however, most of them can only do simple and small fragment based
conversion. So far, one of the best and free .net code conversion tool is
the reflector tool. You can first compiled the certain class and load the
assembly through reflector, then the reflector tool can help you display
diassembled code in different languages.

Hope this helps some.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Feb 15 '07 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.