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 7:48 PM

I think the impact of this is High.

PauloMorgado wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 10:25 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 10:25 AM

wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM

rslaney wrote Mar 11, 2008 at 8:33 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 4:46 PM

wrote May 22, 2008 at 6:21 PM

wrote Jun 9, 2008 at 7:08 PM

wrote Jun 12, 2008 at 7:01 PM

wrote Jun 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM

wrote Jun 17, 2008 at 6:14 PM

wrote Jul 27, 2008 at 4:10 AM

mbrownbh wrote Jul 30, 2008 at 3:54 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 4:13 PM

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

wrote Aug 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM

wrote Aug 25, 2008 at 3:41 AM

wrote Sep 11, 2008 at 5:50 PM

wrote Oct 26, 2008 at 11:24 PM

wrote Nov 8, 2008 at 11:34 PM

wrote Nov 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM

wrote Dec 8, 2008 at 7:27 AM

wrote Dec 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM

wrote Dec 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM

wrote Dec 30, 2008 at 9:01 AM

MikeNic wrote Jan 19, 2009 at 12:25 PM

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

Agreed this is a High Impact issue.

wrote Jan 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM

wrote Feb 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM

wrote Feb 13, 2009 at 5:24 AM

wrote Apr 21, 2009 at 2:37 AM

wrote Jun 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM

wrote Jun 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM

wrote Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM

wrote Jul 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

wrote Sep 1, 2009 at 7:18 AM

wrote Sep 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM

wrote Oct 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM

wrote Nov 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM

Samjog wrote Dec 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM

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 11:41 AM

wrote Mar 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM

wrote Mar 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

wrote Apr 8, 2010 at 11:40 AM

wrote Aug 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

wrote Oct 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM

wrote Mar 7, 2011 at 1:39 AM

wrote Aug 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM

wrote Sep 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM

wrote Apr 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

wrote Feb 21, 2013 at 11:02 PM