Geek asks and answers

Why shouldn't I deploy my asp.net site or webapp in the root of the domain in IIS?

A few years ago, I remember that I was struggling with several sites in the same situation with the domain where one of the sites was placed in the root directory.

While I was reading an authoritative post that clearly explained to me why this was a bad idea, I remember that the main problem is related to the cascading issue of web.config (forcing you to decompress conflicting links in child projects that are essentially foreign to this project ) From now on, I always hosted any website in my own virtual path, using a single redirect in the root to point to the default website.

I can no longer find this authoritative link, and deployment considerations may have changed since then.

What are the pros and cons of this scenario? I ask because the company I work with frowns, sharing deployments this way, and I don’t think this is a good idea.

+5
source share
2 answers

Short answer: isolation . IMO the benefits of hosting various websites / web applications without isolating them are pointless.

Long answer:

Pros:

  • Using a single port without specific bindings (e.g. aliases): if you do not have access to bindings to websites, its useful
  • Rapid deployment and creation of a dynamic website: you can create a new child site without declaring it on the IIS side
  • : - (, mime ..)

:

  • : , , / .. ( , ..)

  • AppDomain : AppDomains. AppDomain, : AppDomain , - AppDomain ( , AppDomain web.config)

  • : - IIS, IIS - , . 32- 64- , .

  • : , / AppDomain, // . , .

  • : -.

- .

IIS 7, " ": http://www.adopenstatic.com/cs/blogs/ken/archive/2008/01/29/15759.aspx

: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/Web-application-isolation.

SharePoint. : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sgoodyear/archive/2011/11/18/9848865.aspx.

+2

"" ( "-" IIS), , ; , /site 1, /site 2 , . Windows, , , , .

cookie, . IIS - ( ) "" ...

"" ; , " ", " "; , .

+1

More articles:


All Articles