transferring an asp.net project from one pc to another

[Stimp]

I'm trying to copy an asp.net project onto another computer in order to
work on it from there as well. Whatever way I set up the directory in IIS
the project cannot be run on the new computer (I posted a similar post
yesterday but this one should be a bit clearer as to the steps I took..)


When I copied the project directory into the wwwroot, and
then went into IIS, it showed the directory in 'Default Web Site' as a
'folder'.

I then created a virtual directory with the same name as the folder and
then the name appeared TWICE (once for virtual directory and once for
the folder)

I even tried removing the folder from wwwroot and created the virtual
directory again.

Once I copied the folder back into wwwroot, IIS still showed it
appearing twice.

That seems to have been the problem that I couldn't find a solution to
(it wouldn't run the project because of this)


When I created a new project in VS, it only showed the virtual directory
in IIS despite the folder being in wwwroot. Weird.

Any ideas why this might be happening?

Thanks.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Hasn't this question already been answered for you ?

You need to distinguish between copying a website and copying a project.
You don't copy a website and treat it as if it was a project.

As far as projects are concerned, just copying the source files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\WebSites

....and copying the solution files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\xxx

....will suffice to copy a project, as long as the paths in the solution files are the same,
and as long as the virtual directory exists in the second computer.

If the virtual directory does not exist in the second computer, create it.

If the physical path is not the same ( drive and directory tree ),
then edit the solution file so it points to the right directory,
and make sure the virtual directory specified in the solution file exists.

 

[Stimp]

Hasn't this question already been answered for you ?

nope

You need to distinguish between copying a website and copying a project.
You don't copy a website and treat it as if it was a project.

As far as projects are concerned, just copying the source files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\WebSites

...and copying the solution files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\xxx

...will suffice to copy a project, as long as the paths in the solution files are the same,
and as long as the virtual directory exists in the second computer.

right, I'm doing this in VS 2003 btw , I should have mentioned that.

If the virtual directory does not exist in the second computer, create it.

If the physical path is not the same ( drive and directory tree ),
then edit the solution file so it points to the right directory,
and make sure the virtual directory specified in the solution file exists.

right, so it doesn't matter if I create the virtual directory first and
then copy the project directory to wwwroot (as opposed to copying the
project before creating the virtual directory)?

Also.. on a side note.. why does everyone in this newsgroup top-post. Is
it now acceptable netiquette?

Thanks!
Peter

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

right, I'm doing this in VS 2003 btw , I should have mentioned that.

The only difference is that the file to edit is:

Projectname.csproj.webinfo
or
Projectname.vbproj.webinfo

And the content which you edit is :

<Web URLPath = "http://localhost/Directory.If.It.Exists/Projectname.csproj" />
or
<Web URLPath = "http://localhost/Directory.If.It.Exists/Projectname.vbproj" />

Once you have created the IIS application, and pointed the
physical directory to the virtual directory, double-clicking
the Solution file will open the project in VS 2003 - no problem.

re:

right, so it doesn't matter if I create the virtual directory first and
then copy the project directory to wwwroot (as opposed to copying the
project before creating the virtual directory)?

Right, it doesn't matter, as long as the path in the webinfo
file is correct before you open the project with VS 2003.

re:

Also.. on a side note.. why does everyone in this newsgroup top-post. Is
it now acceptable netiquette?

I never knew that top-posting was unacceptable netiquette.
It's the poster's choice whether to top or bottom post.

Hasn't this question already been answered for you ?

nope

You need to distinguish between copying a website and copying a project.
You don't copy a website and treat it as if it was a project.

As far as projects are concerned, just copying the source files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\WebSites

...and copying the solution files, found at :
Drive:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\xxx

...will suffice to copy a project, as long as the paths in the solution files are the same,
and as long as the virtual directory exists in the second computer.

right, I'm doing this in VS 2003 btw , I should have mentioned that.

If the virtual directory does not exist in the second computer, create it.

If the physical path is not the same ( drive and directory tree ),
then edit the solution file so it points to the right directory,
and make sure the virtual directory specified in the solution file exists.

right, so it doesn't matter if I create the virtual directory first and
then copy the project directory to wwwroot (as opposed to copying the
project before creating the virtual directory)?

Also.. on a side note.. why does everyone in this newsgroup top-post. Is
it now acceptable netiquette?

Thanks!
Peter

 

[Stimp]

Right, it doesn't matter, as long as the path in the webinfo
file is correct before you open the project with VS 2003.

great thanks!

I never knew that top-posting was unacceptable netiquette.
It's the poster's choice whether to top or bottom post.

yeah it's generally regarded as easier to read if you bottom-post (i.e.
you read the answer after reading the question, without having to scroll
down to find the original question)

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Thanks again!

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

yeah it's generally regarded as easier to read if you bottom-post (i.e.
you read the answer after reading the question, without having to scroll
down to find the original question)

I find it a bit of a bother to have to skip through a whole post
before getting to the part which most interests me: the answer.

When reading replies, I generally already know the question.

;-)

 

[Stimp]

re:

I find it a bit of a bother to have to skip through a whole post
before getting to the part which most interests me: the answer.

When reading replies, I generally already know the question.

ah but you replied to me in a bottom post format

You generally cut out the lines of text that are not relevant to the
answer thus making the post shorter

Take 2 or 3 seconds extra to do, but makes the replies a lot clearer
imho

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

ah but you replied to me in a bottom post format

No, I didn't.
I *quoted* the relevant part of the post and posted my reply below it, just like in this post.

The rest of the post is still quoted below, in case anybody wants some context.
That's "smart top posting" ( I always reply in that mode ).

;-)

Bottom posting is when you post your reply at the bottom of the complete post.

 

[Stimp]

re:

No, I didn't.
I *quoted* the relevant part of the post and posted my reply below it, just like in this post.

The rest of the post is still quoted below, in case anybody wants some context.
That's "smart top posting" ( I always reply in that mode ).

;-)

Bottom posting is when you post your reply at the bottom of the complete post.

did you follow the link I posted?

Bottom posting is always 'quoting' the previous post. As it should
always be done
















;-)

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Bottom posting is always 'quoting' the previous post.

Slightly inaccurate. See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_posting

' The main options are "top-posting" — replying above the original message;
"bottom-posting" — replying below; or "interleaved posting". '

I always reply using "top-posting", i.e., *replying above the original message*.

Whether you quote or not is irrelevant to the style used.
You can quote and still use either style.

The article pretty much summarizes the issues on all sides of the argument,
plus the history behind them. It's an interesting read.

Again, I only have a preference.
I'd never attempt to convince anybody to use the style I favor instead of another one.