I have created an Web API application using EF code first which I want to deploy it to production.
I want to move it to production, so how should I share my MVC App with client & also in production how we will be creating databases as there would be no visual studio present there
(usually in local when we run the project in VS database gets generated if we are using code first)
We use for the exact same scenario Entity Framework Migrations.
It works without any problems.
You can easily change the database from version to version.
Also downgrading is supported.
With some third party tools you can also add other dbms then SQL Server.
See http://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/getting-started/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/migrations-and-deployment-with-the-entity-framework-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application for some more information.
Related
i have a Mvc 4 project i would like to publish on a windows server 2012. On the windows server 2012 i have setup IIS 8 and Sql express. Do you know of a good guide to set this up? My issue is that i can't get the database working. I would like to make it so i can easily publish changes to the website. Any ideas how to do this?
is it possible to setup Visual studios on the server for the nuget package console?
the only way i have got this working was to copy the entire database to sql express but if i change anything i have to do it agian. Not a very stable solution.
Best regards John,
It's not exactly clear what the problem is, but I'll try to give a couple of pointers.
First, nuget shouldn't be involved in the deployment per se; it's involved when building the project, but once you get a deployment package it should contain everything the project needs - look at setting up the deployment using the visual studio built in tools, i.e. see this MSDN link.
The database is a separate side of this. You say you can't 'get it working' which I can't really help with since there's no details - you need to be familiar with connection strings and change your connection string during the deployment so your app can connect to the right database. The publishing wizard linked above can help with this as well, or you can use config transforms, or any number of other mechanisms.
Documentation here has details about what you can do on the database side. The publishing wizard (when using web deploy) can read the database schema and even make schema comparisons so you can deploy schema updates, but I've never actually used that solution - I usually need more control over what happens so I manage my schema upgrade and downgrade scripts myself.
Since there are many problems compounded in this question I suggest you ask a separate, more focused, question about each one.
I'm currently developing a new sitecore website.
There's my working project on my local machine and a project on a staging server. The staging server does not have Visual Studio.
I want to connect via Sitecore Explorer to the project on the server. But it seems like i can only give local folders when i try to create a new connection.
( The reason i want this is because there is some functionality that is available in sitecore explorer but not in the /myWebsite/sitecore interface.
Does anyone know how to achieve this ?
It is not recommended that you use Sitecore Rocks in an environment other than development as it can open up some potential security issues.
However, there is a standalone version here that can be installed without VS.
http://vsplugins.sitecore.net/install/default.html
I would do what you need to do in Rocks then uninstall when done.
If you already have the sitecore rocks configured in the staging environment (by copying it from dev, for example), you could connect, leaving the "Location" field empty.
Only operations requiring access to the folder would fail, but most of the functionality should work.
I'm thoroughly confused about how to properly deploy ASP.NET MVC with my application. As far as I understand, there are the following ways you can get it on a machine:
You can download a separate installer and install it on a machine that has the approprite .NET framework (although which MVC version requires which .NET framework?)
Some versions come along with .NET framework itself (though I can't find which version of MVC is shipped with which version of .NET);
Some versions are installed with Visual Studio (though again, no idea which versions are installed with which versions of VS). In this case, you can set Copy Locally to true for these references and perform a "bin deploy". You might need to add some extra references though (not sure which though).
You can also download MVC as a NuGet package, in which case it also downloads some other unrelated packages like WebPages, Infrastructure and Razor (which is my personal WTF - wasn't Razor a core part of MVC?). In this case the build process will automatically do a "bin deploy" by default (I think...)
So... WTF? What is the proper way to add MVC to your development workstation, what is the proper way to add the references to your project (NuGet? GAC?), and what is the proper way to deploy it to the target server (separate installer? .NET installer? bin deploy?)
"Proper" Development:
The "proper way" (by which I mean standard/redistributable way) would be using Nuget for your references. This means you can easily manage different versions and anybody else working on your project has a standard repository from which to pull the external requirements.
The NuGet documentation has a decent explanation of how to add references.
To install the appropriate version of MVC for developing through Visual Studio, just download and install it from the ASP.NET MVC website. This will install the necessary templates for you to create a new MVC project in Visual Studio. This will also include the necessary binaries, etc.
"Proper" Deployment:
Use bin deploy to deploy to your webserver. This means you don't need full admin priviledges to install the MVC requirements.
Phil Haack's guide will walk you through the process of bin deploying MVC3+
Keep in mind, the web server does need the appropriate .NET platform installed. You should install this via the appropriate redistributable installer if it is not already installed on the server.
Referring to the deployment i publish my asp.net app (i usually make web applications) to the file system in a directory (you can set also a server there, but i don't like it) and make an upload to the server with an FTP client of all the deployed folders. All the changes that i make to the app after (like bug correction) i deploy all the app again and upload single parts.
I hope i get your question in part, this is my first answer in SO.
I have Visutal Studio 2012, MVC 4 & Razor. I am having trouble getting a website up and running with this technology.
The Web Server is a Windows Server 2008 server. I tried deploying using the Web Deploy method but am consistently getting something like 'set ACL" error.
I tried deploying using the File System. All files got deployed, but when I try and run the website, it fails because of missing ASP.NET MVC infrastruccture files.
Two things:
•If I use Web-Deploy, how do I solve the ACL error, because I assume with this method, everything needed will get deployed.
Note that the Web Deploy 3.0 service is on the server and started.
•If I use File System, where can I find the downloads needed to deploy on the server where MVC WILL work.
◦Note that I downloaded the 4.5 Framework and was successfully installed.
You need to be a bit more precise with what you need help with.
What's the exact error.
Often times you need to give the IIS users group access to at least read from the directory where you've deployed. Did you do this already?
Do you have .NET 4.5 and MVC4 installed on the server? If not, are you expecting those DLLs to be "packaged" with your deployment? They generally are not since they are "standard" assemblies. But if you want them to be included in your deployment you can do that by selecting the references in VS and saying "copy." This is not recommended because when you install patches to .NET and MVC on the server, those updates will not carry through to your app, since it'll use the local (old) copies of your assemblies.
This may be more of an IIS issue, but not sure based on the details in your question.
Check that the application pool that the site is running under is using .net 4.0.
Just a thought I would check.
In PHP, you can just log in to the FTP and see all of the files. I notice in VB ASP.NET MVC when I publish a site it doesn't include the controllers or models. Rather, it seems to compile them into DLLs. How can the files be modified with out access to the originals? Would a developer have to publish the files in a separate directory and then the other developer pull them down and open the project in visual studio?
Keep your SourceCode in a Version Control System like SVN /GIT /TFS etc.. Whenever you want to make an update , Get the specific version you want to update and make update to that.
Having a Version control gives you so many advantages
1) Collaborative working. Many members of a team can work on same code base without overwriting conflict
2) Restore to a Previous Version : Something wrong with the current production move ?. Just get the Previous version (Label) which is working fine (and was running in prod) and rollback to that till you fix the issue.
Keeping the Previous versions of code will save a lot of time in a Programmers / Team's life.
This SO question has good points about why we should use version control.
Version control is not only for Teams. Individual developers can keep their code in Version controls and sleep nicely
Btw, Your MVC project's Model classes and Controllers classes are compiled into the DLL files.
I've seen a lot of companies that work with Visual Studio implement Visual Source Safe.
information can be found here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3h0544kx%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
otherwise it's pretty much what Shyju said.
In a professional environment, there is a very clear distinction between editing source code, and deploying to production. You seem to make no distinction.
Usually developers make changes under careful control using a source control system like SVN.
Build & deployment is then done separately by a dedicated team member. Developers do not touch the production servers willy-nilly.
How can the files be modified with out access to the originals?
I don't understand. If you want developers to have full access to the production environment, why not give them full access to the source code as well? In your PHP example this is a given.