 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / April 2008Install to GAC on Remote Servers
I have googled this a bunch and it appears that it is not possible to install to the GAC on a remote machine unless a .msi is created or we use some 3rd party tool that enables the running of command line apps remotely (gacutil.exe in this case). I'm hoping I just missed something, and if not, I'm hoping for some pointers on accomplishing this. Using .NET 3.5 beta 2, I'm writing a utility that, amongst other things, must be capable of installing assemblies to the GAC on both the local machine and on remote machines visible on the local network. These are all Windows Server 2003 Web servers in support of ASP.NET Web applications. We really don't want to separate this GAC installation piece from the utility (e.g., no .msi or other deployment packaging). Ideally we just plop the assembly and .snk file into a "launch pad" folder... from which the C# utility then installs to the multiple other Web servers. Suggestions? Thanks in advance! Well, the first thing I would ask is "why GAC?". This is the most important question... Other than core framework components and additions (WSE3, WF/WCF/WPF), you can do most things without using the GAC (just using the default or custom probing-paths), and hence use "robocopy" depoyment. I find this works without any difficulty in almost every case; there are some exceptions (COM facets, serviced components, etc). With this knowledge, and knowing that I need to be able to deploy easily to a farm, I tend to design with "robocopy" in mind, hence avoid GAC [for my own dlls] like the plague. The second question would be "why deploy the SNK?". This is only normally needed on a build-server (or developer desktop). Normally the thumbprint (or hash, or whatever they call it for SNK) suffices. As for installing into the GAC... at one point, IIRC, msi was the only supported route, with "gacutil" classed as a development / debugging tool. I can't be 100% sure, since I (as above) avoid needing to use it. And don't forget you need to be admin to use it... Marc <snip> RE: << Well, the first thing I would ask is "why GAC?". This is the most important question...>> While I have been using robocopy for a few years now on this particular system and have been duplicating the .dlls amongst the Web sites, I want to some of the assemblies amongst a few web sites on a few Web servers. I have a utility I have been using to "robocopy-deploy" files to the sites. I just figured that the GAC is here to help us to share a given assemblies amongst many applications. In my case they are ASP.NET Web apps... thought I could simplify things by installing once per server rather than once per Web site. Is there some problem with using the GAC? Unless I'm reading you wrong, your questioning seems to imply that it may be more of a problem than a benefit. If that is in fact the case, then I'd like to know, as I have not yet installed anything to the GAC and have just read up on gacutil and how it needs .snk to do it's job. I was going to roll up my sleeves starting tomorrow to get my head wrapped around the GAC and make this all happen. But if you've been there and done that and can tell my why it's not worth it, if that is in fact the case, I'd appreciate that too. > and how it needs .snk to do it's job. it needs that the assembly has been strong-named with an SNK (?or cert?) - however, it doesn't need the actual SNK that was used. The SNK hash forms part of the full-name of the assembly. Deploying this may actually present a security risk, in that it would make it easy for somebody to simulate your dll (including your private SNK). But generally if somebody can do this they have already compromised your farm, and you have bigger issues ;-p > But if you've been there and done that and can tell my why it's not worth it... In my view, it is just dll-hell all over again; GAC-hell. Disks are cheap, and having separate copies provides an additional level of isolation between apps (i.e. you can upgrade each version individually without having to stress over version-forwarding policies, etc). It may suit some scenarios (and is a bitter necessity for some that I already mentioned), but I generally avoid the GAC. I'd welcome other views from the floor... Marc You can use http://www.codeplex.com/remotegacutil Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.