As an ASP.NET web developer using Visual Studio, should I install IIS?

Question

We are developing ASP.NET using Visual Studio.

The question just discussed is: should our developers install IIS.

With ASP.NET Development Server, you can run your web applications without IIS. Once you are happy with everything, you can deploy it to a test server running IIS, and then to Live.

In my opinion, all developers should also install IIS on their own machines, as this will ultimately become the ultimate platform for the application.

The arguments are mainly related to the fact that the developer should have the most “live” environment, or if the developer should only have the tools that they need, and not be cluttered with other things.

None of this is critical for missions, and I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion. I'm just curious to hear some of them!

Robin

Answer 1

I want to definitely say yes . IIS and Cassini do not match, and without exposing your code to production conditions, this can cause problems. Better get used to it as soon as possible.

(obviously, you can replace "IIS" with "Apache" or whatever your web server is)

Answer 2

I would say that you do not need to install IIS, but at some point you should test IIS.

The development web server has two "problems":

• it works only for local queries
• ALL requests are sent through ASP.net

Especially the second point can really open up ways to shoot in the foot. "Why can people access SuperSecretPicture.jpg? I have a handler in my Web.config that blocks this!"

But if you know about these limitations, I found that it is better to start a development web server, as you can focus on your code first and then on your environment, but YMMV.

Answer 3

The bottom line is that your application is served by IIS, you must test IIS. If this means that IIS on your local machine or dev server is up to you.

Answer 4

What harm can he do if it is installed? At least if you installed it, you can use it or not. On the day when you need to debug the webservice call from an external application that you do not want to interfere with its installation.

Answer 5

Depends - do you use server-side versions of windows for your dev boxes?

Because, for example, the XP IIS version is different from the 2000/2003 server, so you will get a different experience. Similarly, if you are developing Vista, but planning to deploy in 2003, this will not be a “complete” experience.

Answer 6

We have IIS installed on our local machines in our work for development purposes. We need to test web applications against IIS, but we also do not want to release it on our live server or on our test server, since this requires a lot of work. Instead, we simply place it locally, and every time we modify a file through Visual Studio, we can instantly see the changes without having to go through the process of copying files.

I do not think that this is generally bad, if everything is safe, everything will be fine.

Answer 7

Ideally, your test server should reflect your production server. This goes without saying. In my opinion, your development environment should be as close as possible to the minimum while fulfilling your needs (I prefer to support the development environment as self-sustaining if I am disconnected from the network).

I have no problem using a dev server for development, and IIS (locally or remotely, as the case may be) for testing - but this also depends on the requirements of the project. For example, I prefer to host web services on a local IIS server. YMMV.

Answer 8

We develop virtual machines on laptops. That way, if the virtual OS crashes (or the host OS, for that matter), you just copy vpc back from the network (where we have backups), and you're good to go. In addition, it facilitates the launch of a “standard” development platform as close to production as possible.

We must install IIS for us as we develop Sharepoint '07 websites.