asp.net mvc - What is the difference between setting up mod-mono virtual hosts via webapp file versus apache site configuration? -


i'm using mod-mono deploying asp.net mvc application on ubuntu server 10.04. following packages installed: mono-apache-server4 libapache2-mod-mono apache2.

there several blogs configure mod-mono virtual hosts via sites-available apache configuration. example, modify /etc/apache2/sites-available/default configuration this:

<virtualhost *:80>     serveradmin webmaster@localhost      monoapplications "/:/var/www"     monoserverpath /usr/bin/mod-mono-server4      ... more default configuration 

but there sites advise use webapp file mod-mono virtual host configuration. example, modify /etc/mono-server4/debian.webapp this:

<apps>     <web-application>         <name>default</name>         <vpath>/</vpath>         <path>/var/www/</path>         <vhost>127.0.0.1</vhost>     </web-application> </apps> 

both approaches need apache site sethandler mono configuration setting.

the difference noticed sites configuration have explicitly define mod-mono-server4 (otherwise system trying start server2 instance not installed). when configured via sites configuration seems there additional mono_server process spawned.

i guess should go webapp option, there "big" differences between 2 approaches? webapp configuration distribution specific or why there 2 options anyway?

webapp config file approach can used stand-alone xsp4, without need of apache. example, can run:

xsp4 --appconfigfile etc/mono-server4/debian.webapp 

and you'll xsp4 working webapp config file.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

php - Calling a template part from a post -

Firefox SVG shape not printing when it has stroke -

How to mention the localhost in android -