43
Vote

IIS7 Issue - Microsoft.Practices.CompositeWeb uses HttpRequest in Application_Start

description

IIS7 Integrated mode has removed the HttpRequest context from the Application_Start event. The Microsoft.Practices.CompositeWeb.WebClientApplication class ultimately relies on the HttpRequest object to initialise the web configuration. This needs to be corrected, if nothing else than as a design decision.
 
A specific example is Microsoft.Practices.CompositeWeb.Services.WebConfigModuleInfoStore.GetConfiguration(string configFilePath)
ApplicationPath and PhysicalApplicationPath are both available from the HttpRuntime class.

file attachments

comments

PauloMorgado wrote Mar 10, 2008 at 8:48 PM

I think the impact of this is High.

PauloMorgado wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM

While this isn't solved, there are two workarounds:

Changing the Composite Web Application Block

Changing the application

WCSF 2.0 And IIS7 Integrated Pipeline Mode
http://msmvps.com/blogs/paulomorgado/archive/2008/03/11/wcsf-2-0-and-iis7-integrated-pipeline-mode.aspx

wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM

wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM

rslaney wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 9:33 PM

I have changed the CompositeWeb library and the system mow appears to correctly run in IIS7 integrated pipeline mode... but as is usual for a developer type I have not tested extensively.

... It works on my machine ..

wrote Mar 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM

wrote May 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM

wrote Jun 9, 2008 at 8:08 PM

wrote Jun 12, 2008 at 8:01 PM

wrote Jun 13, 2008 at 4:26 PM

wrote Jun 17, 2008 at 7:14 PM

wrote Jul 27, 2008 at 5:10 AM

mbrownbh wrote Jul 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Seriously isn't the entire point of the PnP team to show us BEST practices. If the IIS Team removed the request from App_Start, then there is an obvious flaw in using it in the first place.

Just saying, we don't support IIS7 sounds like a cop out to me...

mbrownbh wrote Jul 30, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Oh wait...the work around is to use a classic mode app pool.

wrote Aug 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM

wrote Aug 25, 2008 at 4:41 AM

wrote Sep 11, 2008 at 6:50 PM

wrote Oct 27, 2008 at 12:24 AM

wrote Nov 9, 2008 at 12:34 AM

wrote Nov 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM

wrote Dec 8, 2008 at 8:27 AM

wrote Dec 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM

wrote Dec 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM

wrote Dec 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM

MikeNic wrote Jan 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Is there an ETA on when this change will be included?

Agreed this is a High Impact issue.

wrote Jan 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM

wrote Feb 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM

wrote Feb 13, 2009 at 6:24 AM

wrote Apr 21, 2009 at 3:37 AM

wrote Jun 17, 2009 at 2:13 PM

wrote Jun 28, 2009 at 1:38 AM

wrote Jul 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM

wrote Jul 28, 2009 at 5:00 PM

wrote Sep 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM

wrote Sep 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM

wrote Oct 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM

wrote Nov 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Samjog wrote Dec 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

We have the same issue,did the same workaround #1 suggested by PauloMorgado
but size of the dll doesn't match.Is that because one is strongnamed?
It also gives 2 compile error in ShellModuleInitializer.cs

wrote Dec 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

wrote Mar 4, 2010 at 1:59 PM

wrote Mar 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM

wrote Apr 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM

wrote Aug 6, 2010 at 1:22 PM

wrote Oct 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM

wrote Mar 7, 2011 at 2:39 AM

wrote Aug 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM

wrote Sep 18, 2011 at 3:37 PM

wrote Apr 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

wrote Feb 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM