Monday, January 28, 2008 4:11 PM
In IIS 6.0, different versions of the .NET framework can co-exist on the same website but must use separate application pools. Once a .NET process "grabs" the app pool, other .NET processes are denied its use and report generic server errors in the browser. Which .NET process gets an app pool first depends on which is first requested after an application pool recycle. For example the .NET 2.0 process might get the application pool first, and all .NET 1.1 applications that rely on the application pool fail to run; end users see generic server errors that do not report what is really going on.
Installing Inmagic Webpublisher or Genie
Although Webpublisher inmagicbrowse and Genie inmagicgenie virtual directories are correctly set to use .NET 2.0, the installer lets the parent website determine which application pool to use. A typical Windows 2003 Server might have .NET 1.1 and DefaultAppPool as the default on new websites. If there are any .NET 1.1 applications already on the server that rely on DefaultAppPool, then inmagicbrowse and inmagicgenie are setting the server up for an application pool conflict.
Separate Application Pools
Set up a separate application pool just for Genie, and one for Webpublisher. This way you avoid any conflict with applications currently on the server, but also allow for changes in .NET dependency in future: when Genie starts using .NET 3.5 you won't have to worry about re-organizing application pools. It's also good practice to isolate applications like this so that when one does go down, it doesn't take other applications with it.
Friday, January 11, 2008 11:41 AM
I swear to Somebody Above, or, if it will get results, to Something Below, that I simply cannot witness one more lame attempt to hitch an industry wagon to the "Web 2.0" star.
The whole Web 2.0 conceit is one that went down my gullet like a barbed meatball anyway, but okay, fine, I digested it and moved on with my life. At least it kind of means something now, I guess: AJAX-heavy apps, community collaboration, and candyshell logos.
Library 2.0 elicited a mild groan from me when I heard it, the kind of mewl that comes out of you the morning after 7 vodka martinis the night before, and now Sales 2.0 is something that just infiltrated my inbox and stabbed me in the eyeballs.
This 2.0 thing has gone too far.
It's important to be aware of what's happening out there in the web environment, the kind of impact it might have on your business or organization, and the evolving expectations of your customer/audience base, but to claw your way onto the latest bandwagon and call yourself Whatever 2.0 does not say: "We're boldly riding the bleeding edge of web technology." What it says is: "We haven't a clue but we're desperate to look cool."
Andornot 2.0, or, hoist with my own petard
Hmm. Eight hits on google from andornot.com for "web 2.0". Forty lashes with a wet noodle for this one, I think.