Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=, Oct 12, 2005.

  1. In my ASP.NET 1.1 solutions, I created several web projects and compiled them
    each into an assembly. The assembly names reflected the functionality of the
    feature (Membership.dll, Dues.dll, etc). This made it easy to update an area
    of the product and deploy that assembly (along with it's associated Business
    Layer assembly).

    In 2.0, I can use pure dynamic compilation (ick - source code on the
    server); fixed_names (ick - hundreds or thousands of dlls to manage); or full
    precompilation mode (ick - no predictable names and no obvious way to upgrade
    a particular application area). I really like the full precompilation option
    a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.
    =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=, Oct 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi Bob,

    Welcome to ASPNET newsgroup.
    As for the ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation generated assembly's name problem,
    I've also got some feedback on this from some other community members. In
    fact, the current precompilation genearted assemblies are still using the
    same dynamic compilation mechanism like the full-dynamic compilation, so
    you'll found the naming style of the precompilation assemblies are the same
    with the ones being generated at runtime when not use precompilation (view
    them in the ASP.NET Temporary folder). So they're different from the
    assemblies we build in asp.net 1.1 project, those ones are not compiled
    following the dynamic compilation naming rules.

    And for your senario, since you have certain business components or other
    class components which need to be separated compiled from the asp.net front
    UI's assemblies, I think you can move those separate component classes into
    external class library projects and compile them separately, thus we can
    control the output assemblies' name for them. Also in the asp.net
    application, we can reference those external components assemblies and
    deploy them in the private bin dir also.

    Thanks,

    Steven Cheng
    Microsoft Online Support

    Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
    (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
    rights.)


    --------------------
    | Thread-Topic: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | thread-index: AcXOv8IknPw4anqJSoC6ogp233X9vw==
    | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 206.71.69.234
    | From: "=?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=" <>
    | Subject: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700
    | Lines: 14
    | Message-ID: <>
    | MIME-Version: 1.0
    | Content-Type: text/plain;
    | charset="Utf-8"
    | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    | Importance: normal
    | Priority: normal
    | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
    | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
    | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
    | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl
    microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet:350141
    | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    |
    | In my ASP.NET 1.1 solutions, I created several web projects and compiled
    them
    | each into an assembly. The assembly names reflected the functionality of
    the
    | feature (Membership.dll, Dues.dll, etc). This made it easy to update an
    area
    | of the product and deploy that assembly (along with it's associated
    Business
    | Layer assembly).
    |
    | In 2.0, I can use pure dynamic compilation (ick - source code on the
    | server); fixed_names (ick - hundreds or thousands of dlls to manage); or
    full
    | precompilation mode (ick - no predictable names and no obvious way to
    upgrade
    | a particular application area). I really like the full precompilation
    option
    | a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    | assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow
    me
    | to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying
    to
    | guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.
    |
    Steven Cheng[MSFT], Oct 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=

    Scott Allen Guest

    On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700, "Jason"
    <> wrote:

    > I really like the full precompilation option
    >a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    >assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    >to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    >guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.



    There will be a build and deployment tool available soon that will
    allow you to place all of the pre-compiled assemblies into a single
    assembly. I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be
    specified or not, but we'll have to wait and see.

    --
    Scott
    http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Scott Allen, Oct 12, 2005
    #3
  4. re:
    > I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be specified or not


    Yes, we will be able to specify the name of the final assembly.



    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/
    ======================================
    "Scott Allen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700, "Jason"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I really like the full precompilation option
    >>a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    >>assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    >>to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    >>guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.

    >
    >
    > There will be a build and deployment tool available soon that will
    > allow you to place all of the pre-compiled assemblies into a single
    > assembly. I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be
    > specified or not, but we'll have to wait and see.
    >
    > --
    > Scott
    > http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Juan T. Llibre, Oct 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Do you mean a third party tool? Or will this functionality be available in
    VS.NET 2005? If I have the ability to build my asp.net pages to an assembly
    of a certain, developer-defined name, I will be a very happy camper, indeed!

    "Scott Allen" wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700, "Jason"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I really like the full precompilation option
    > >a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    > >assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    > >to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    > >guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.

    >
    >
    > There will be a build and deployment tool available soon that will
    > allow you to place all of the pre-compiled assemblies into a single
    > assembly. I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be
    > specified or not, but we'll have to wait and see.
    >
    > --
    > Scott
    > http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=, Oct 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Thank you, Steven, for your reply.

    I was aware that I could name the business layer objects whatever I wanted.

    The concern is with the assemblies generated by the pages. An update usually
    consists of a vertical portion of the application (i.e., Membership). I would
    want to replace the Presentation layer, the Business layer, and upgrade the
    DB layer. The second two are easy, because I know what is where. The
    Presentation layer is unmanageable if I can't identify which assembly
    contains which function group.

    I need to be able to have Membership.dll (contains the compiled pages and
    their codefiles), MembershipBL.dll (contains the business components),
    Utility.dll (contains shared classes, etc), and SQLData.dll (database layer).

    Under the current model (the way I understand it), I could have
    MembershipBL.dll, Utility.dll, and SQLData.dll. But what I would like to call
    Membership.dll, would actually be dynamically named and that name would not
    persist across builds (which, incidentally, also causes problems with my
    automated build and deploy process). And I don't want to use -fixednames,
    because I don't want to end up with 1400 dlls.

    "Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:

    > Hi Bob,
    >
    > Welcome to ASPNET newsgroup.
    > As for the ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation generated assembly's name problem,
    > I've also got some feedback on this from some other community members. In
    > fact, the current precompilation genearted assemblies are still using the
    > same dynamic compilation mechanism like the full-dynamic compilation, so
    > you'll found the naming style of the precompilation assemblies are the same
    > with the ones being generated at runtime when not use precompilation (view
    > them in the ASP.NET Temporary folder). So they're different from the
    > assemblies we build in asp.net 1.1 project, those ones are not compiled
    > following the dynamic compilation naming rules.
    >
    > And for your senario, since you have certain business components or other
    > class components which need to be separated compiled from the asp.net front
    > UI's assemblies, I think you can move those separate component classes into
    > external class library projects and compile them separately, thus we can
    > control the output assemblies' name for them. Also in the asp.net
    > application, we can reference those external components assemblies and
    > deploy them in the private bin dir also.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Steven Cheng
    > Microsoft Online Support
    >
    > Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
    > (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.)
    >
    >
    > --------------------
    > | Thread-Topic: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    > | thread-index: AcXOv8IknPw4anqJSoC6ogp233X9vw==
    > | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 206.71.69.234
    > | From: "=?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=" <>
    > | Subject: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    > | Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700
    > | Lines: 14
    > | Message-ID: <>
    > | MIME-Version: 1.0
    > | Content-Type: text/plain;
    > | charset="Utf-8"
    > | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    > | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    > | Importance: normal
    > | Priority: normal
    > | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
    > | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    > | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
    > | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
    > | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl
    > microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet:350141
    > | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    > |
    > | In my ASP.NET 1.1 solutions, I created several web projects and compiled
    > them
    > | each into an assembly. The assembly names reflected the functionality of
    > the
    > | feature (Membership.dll, Dues.dll, etc). This made it easy to update an
    > area
    > | of the product and deploy that assembly (along with it's associated
    > Business
    > | Layer assembly).
    > |
    > | In 2.0, I can use pure dynamic compilation (ick - source code on the
    > | server); fixed_names (ick - hundreds or thousands of dlls to manage); or
    > full
    > | precompilation mode (ick - no predictable names and no obvious way to
    > upgrade
    > | a particular application area). I really like the full precompilation
    > option
    > | a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    > | assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow
    > me
    > | to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying
    > to
    > | guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.
    > |
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=, Oct 12, 2005
    #6
  7. re:
    > Do you mean a third party tool?


    No. A Microsoft tool.

    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx

    <quote>

    "Note: one request we've heard from several people since Beta2 has been to
    provide a new third compilation granularity option above which would allow you
    to merge the assembly output from multiple directories into a single assembly
    that has a well known name that you define (and which does not change across
    re-builds - which is one unfortunate side-affect of the per-directory build option today).

    We are working on a tool right now that does this, and have a prototype up and
    running that seems to work great.

    </quote>

    It should work integrated with Visual Studio 2005.

    However, that just covers the additional granularity involved when you want
    all the files in multiple directories compiled to a single assembly.

    VS.NET 2005 has another option, the "fixed names" option,
    which is available when you pre-compile a website.

    Just above the above-quoted paragraph,
    in Scott's blog, is a paragraph which states:

    <quote>

    "Specifically, VS 2005 + ASP.NET 2.0 now by default compiles your
    web project so that each separate directory of .aspx/.ascx content compiles
    into a separate assembly.

    For even more flexibility, you can also optionally choose to compile each
    ..aspx or .ascx file into its own separate assembly (this option is called the
    "fixed name" option because it also results in assemblies whose names are
    fixed across multiple compilations).

    The benefit with this later approach is that you can now deploy individual updates
    on your system without having to re-build and update your entire site."

    </quote>

    See the images just below the blog's heading titled:
    " Building and Deploying the Web Project Library from the VS IDE "

    and you'll see where to select the "fixed names" option
    when pre-compiling your website.

    When you select the "Use fixed naming and single page assemblies"
    option when you publish your web site, you'll be able to, at least,
    name your assemblies, which will take you closer to your goal.

    However, if what you want to do is build to a *single* named assembly
    for all of your website, then you'll have to wait until the tool mentioned
    by Scott is released, which should be at about product release this coming month.



    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/
    ======================================
    "Jason" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Do you mean a third party tool? Or will this functionality be available in
    > VS.NET 2005? If I have the ability to build my asp.net pages to an assembly
    > of a certain, developer-defined name, I will be a very happy camper, indeed!
    >
    > "Scott Allen" wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700, "Jason"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I really like the full precompilation option
    >> >a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    >> >assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    >> >to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    >> >guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.

    >>
    >>
    >> There will be a build and deployment tool available soon that will
    >> allow you to place all of the pre-compiled assemblies into a single
    >> assembly. I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be
    >> specified or not, but we'll have to wait and see.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Scott
    >> http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
    Juan T. Llibre, Oct 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Thanks, Juan. Way to pick a nugget of gold out of an article about something
    else entirely. I actually read that blog entry and glossed over this very
    important peice of information because I was thinking about web control
    libraries, not my build process. (Now if I can just master typing and
    breathing at the same time, I've got it made!)

    "Juan T. Llibre" wrote:

    > re:
    > > Do you mean a third party tool?

    >
    > No. A Microsoft tool.
    >
    > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/08/28/423888.aspx
    >
    > <quote>
    >
    > "Note: one request we've heard from several people since Beta2 has been to
    > provide a new third compilation granularity option above which would allow you
    > to merge the assembly output from multiple directories into a single assembly
    > that has a well known name that you define (and which does not change across
    > re-builds - which is one unfortunate side-affect of the per-directory build option today).
    >
    > We are working on a tool right now that does this, and have a prototype up and
    > running that seems to work great.
    >
    > </quote>
    >
    > It should work integrated with Visual Studio 2005.
    >
    > However, that just covers the additional granularity involved when you want
    > all the files in multiple directories compiled to a single assembly.
    >
    > VS.NET 2005 has another option, the "fixed names" option,
    > which is available when you pre-compile a website.
    >
    > Just above the above-quoted paragraph,
    > in Scott's blog, is a paragraph which states:
    >
    > <quote>
    >
    > "Specifically, VS 2005 + ASP.NET 2.0 now by default compiles your
    > web project so that each separate directory of .aspx/.ascx content compiles
    > into a separate assembly.
    >
    > For even more flexibility, you can also optionally choose to compile each
    > ..aspx or .ascx file into its own separate assembly (this option is called the
    > "fixed name" option because it also results in assemblies whose names are
    > fixed across multiple compilations).
    >
    > The benefit with this later approach is that you can now deploy individual updates
    > on your system without having to re-build and update your entire site."
    >
    > </quote>
    >
    > See the images just below the blog's heading titled:
    > " Building and Deploying the Web Project Library from the VS IDE "
    >
    > and you'll see where to select the "fixed names" option
    > when pre-compiling your website.
    >
    > When you select the "Use fixed naming and single page assemblies"
    > option when you publish your web site, you'll be able to, at least,
    > name your assemblies, which will take you closer to your goal.
    >
    > However, if what you want to do is build to a *single* named assembly
    > for all of your website, then you'll have to wait until the tool mentioned
    > by Scott is released, which should be at about product release this coming month.
    >
    >
    >
    > 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/
    > ======================================
    > "Jason" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Do you mean a third party tool? Or will this functionality be available in
    > > VS.NET 2005? If I have the ability to build my asp.net pages to an assembly
    > > of a certain, developer-defined name, I will be a very happy camper, indeed!
    > >
    > > "Scott Allen" wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700, "Jason"
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > I really like the full precompilation option
    > >> >a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling the
    > >> >assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would allow me
    > >> >to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of trying to
    > >> >guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> There will be a build and deployment tool available soon that will
    > >> allow you to place all of the pre-compiled assemblies into a single
    > >> assembly. I'm not sure if the name of the final assembly can be
    > >> specified or not, but we'll have to wait and see.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Scott
    > >> http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=, Oct 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Thanks for your reply Bob,

    Yes, for pages' assembly it has the limitation on manually naming their
    names. However I think after the framework release our dev guys will turn
    focus on such new feedbacks during the beta2 --->RC time. And at that time
    I think there may occurs more deployment compilation model availble (like
    something mixed the current compliation models)

    Thanks for your feedback,

    Steven Cheng
    Microsoft Online Support

    Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
    (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
    rights.)


    --------------------
    | Thread-Topic: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | thread-index: AcXPP3Wr8aSG7+kkRCewZWU8gSu7yA==
    | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 206.71.69.234
    | From: "=?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=" <>
    | References: <>
    <>
    | Subject: RE: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:13:11 -0700
    | Lines: 106
    | Message-ID: <>
    | MIME-Version: 1.0
    | Content-Type: text/plain;
    | charset="Utf-8"
    | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    | Importance: normal
    | Priority: normal
    | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
    | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
    | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
    | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl
    microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet:350310
    | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    |
    | Thank you, Steven, for your reply.
    |
    | I was aware that I could name the business layer objects whatever I
    wanted.
    |
    | The concern is with the assemblies generated by the pages. An update
    usually
    | consists of a vertical portion of the application (i.e., Membership). I
    would
    | want to replace the Presentation layer, the Business layer, and upgrade
    the
    | DB layer. The second two are easy, because I know what is where. The
    | Presentation layer is unmanageable if I can't identify which assembly
    | contains which function group.
    |
    | I need to be able to have Membership.dll (contains the compiled pages and
    | their codefiles), MembershipBL.dll (contains the business components),
    | Utility.dll (contains shared classes, etc), and SQLData.dll (database
    layer).
    |
    | Under the current model (the way I understand it), I could have
    | MembershipBL.dll, Utility.dll, and SQLData.dll. But what I would like to
    call
    | Membership.dll, would actually be dynamically named and that name would
    not
    | persist across builds (which, incidentally, also causes problems with my
    | automated build and deploy process). And I don't want to use -fixednames,
    | because I don't want to end up with 1400 dlls.
    |
    | "Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:
    |
    | > Hi Bob,
    | >
    | > Welcome to ASPNET newsgroup.
    | > As for the ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation generated assembly's name
    problem,
    | > I've also got some feedback on this from some other community members.
    In
    | > fact, the current precompilation genearted assemblies are still using
    the
    | > same dynamic compilation mechanism like the full-dynamic compilation,
    so
    | > you'll found the naming style of the precompilation assemblies are the
    same
    | > with the ones being generated at runtime when not use precompilation
    (view
    | > them in the ASP.NET Temporary folder). So they're different from the
    | > assemblies we build in asp.net 1.1 project, those ones are not compiled
    | > following the dynamic compilation naming rules.
    | >
    | > And for your senario, since you have certain business components or
    other
    | > class components which need to be separated compiled from the asp.net
    front
    | > UI's assemblies, I think you can move those separate component classes
    into
    | > external class library projects and compile them separately, thus we
    can
    | > control the output assemblies' name for them. Also in the asp.net
    | > application, we can reference those external components assemblies and
    | > deploy them in the private bin dir also.
    | >
    | > Thanks,
    | >
    | > Steven Cheng
    | > Microsoft Online Support
    | >
    | > Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
    | > (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
    | > rights.)
    | >
    | >
    | > --------------------
    | > | Thread-Topic: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | > | thread-index: AcXOv8IknPw4anqJSoC6ogp233X9vw==
    | > | X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 206.71.69.234
    | > | From: "=?Utf-8?B?SmFzb24=?=" <>
    | > | Subject: Naming assemblies in asp.net 2.0
    | > | Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:59:04 -0700
    | > | Lines: 14
    | > | Message-ID: <>
    | > | MIME-Version: 1.0
    | > | Content-Type: text/plain;
    | > | charset="Utf-8"
    | > | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    | > | X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    | > | Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    | > | Importance: normal
    | > | Priority: normal
    | > | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
    | > | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    | > | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
    | > | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
    | > | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl
    | > microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet:350141
    | > | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
    | > |
    | > | In my ASP.NET 1.1 solutions, I created several web projects and
    compiled
    | > them
    | > | each into an assembly. The assembly names reflected the functionality
    of
    | > the
    | > | feature (Membership.dll, Dues.dll, etc). This made it easy to update
    an
    | > area
    | > | of the product and deploy that assembly (along with it's associated
    | > Business
    | > | Layer assembly).
    | > |
    | > | In 2.0, I can use pure dynamic compilation (ick - source code on the
    | > | server); fixed_names (ick - hundreds or thousands of dlls to manage);
    or
    | > full
    | > | precompilation mode (ick - no predictable names and no obvious way to
    | > upgrade
    | > | a particular application area). I really like the full precompilation
    | > option
    | > | a lot -- IF I COULD SPECIFY AN ASSEMBLY NAME. If I am precompiling
    the
    | > | assembly anyway, why can't I specify the assembly name? This would
    allow
    | > me
    | > | to later go to the server and update the Membership.dll instead of
    trying
    | > to
    | > | guess which APP_fdru3jdiuafu3kjf.dll file is the right one.
    | > |
    | >
    | >
    |
    Steven Cheng[MSFT], Oct 13, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Danish Ahmed

    Dynamically Loading Assemblies in ASP.NET

    Danish Ahmed, Apr 15, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    880
    Lionel LASKE
    Apr 17, 2005
  2. Lance Barger

    Too many assemblies asp.net

    Lance Barger, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    450
    Yan-Hong Huang[MSFT]
    Aug 4, 2003
  3. Alvin Bruney

    Re: Locate assemblies in ASP.NET

    Alvin Bruney, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    367
    Alvin Bruney
    Jul 18, 2003
  4. Harman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,502
    Moiristo
    Jul 28, 2006
  5. Vinay Kant

    Strong naming preBuilt assemblies

    Vinay Kant, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    133
    Vinay Kant
    Jan 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page