Multiple Web Sites one Solution RRS feed

  • Question

  • User877358749 posted

    This might be far fetched or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. I want to know if this is possible before I spend a ton of time trying to make it happen. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

    Can I have multiple websites in one solution and have them share session states. I know with 1.1 you could not pass a session from one web project to another without creating a work around to make this happen. <o:p></o:p>

    I want to be able to create an extranet where one website is the wrapper to the portal (header, nav, footer) then the other websites are the modules. The problem is that each of the other websites would have to be able to call the main websites Master Pages and Templates. Each Module has its own class library. <o:p></o:p>

    The product we currently have that is in 1.1 has everything in 1 solution and 1 website project. This is a huge solution and takes forever to load and is hard to manage with many developers. <o:p></o:p>

    If so does anyone have any information on this? Like a tutorial or an article.

    Wednesday, December 7, 2005 1:51 PM

All replies

  • User-429982059 posted
    I suggest a CMS solution instead of re-inventing the wheel.  DNN (VB.NET) and Rainbow Portal(C#) are two of my favorites.  DNN is widly used for its ease.  I favor rainbow for its ability to turn any site into a CMS which DNN def cannot do.[ Im talking full UI and everything + CMS].  You also can easily control multiple websites from one installation.
    Thursday, December 8, 2005 3:01 AM
  • User877358749 posted

    Thank you for the response. I have looked at these and worked with both of them. I will consider them although I still would like to know if what I want to do is possible or not and if there are any places that I can go to where I can see how it is done. 

    I've asked the same question in many forums and the same answer comes up. DNN or Rainbow.  That;s great that they can do it. I'm sure they are both great. Although I would like to know how to accomlish this without having to use base an application off someone elses.

    Just the idea of learning and knowing and not just copying.

    So... is there anyplace that I can look to see how this is done without useing someone elses app?



    Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:54 PM
  • User1117228605 posted

    instead of using dnn/rainbow/portal/cms code....use the same approach they do.

    In the case of dnn there is one main web project. The other projects are essentially class libraries that have ascx's in them. The ascx's sit in a folder called Desktop Modules, and the code sits in a compiled dll in the bin folder.

    hope that helps

    Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:28 PM
  • User-429982059 posted
    Yes but why do this if this is already done?  Rainbow is fully tested system that has an expert way of handling this.  What happens when he has 1000 domains and needs to manage them?  How is your system going to do then?  All I saying is dnn/rainbow already do this plus add 40 modules [rainbow anyways] not to mention a ton of different out of the box features.  You wouldnt have to worry about creating a user system or the ability to add blogs across mutlipe sites.  Good luck coding that functionality to.  Rainbow/dnn are not that difficult to install and they are oh wait whats that again FREE.
    Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:52 PM
  • User296760538 posted
    Goals are what is important. I think his end goal is to manage all these domains, and if there is something that does half of it, why not utilize it and go forward with it?

    There are many reasons why he SHOULD use DNN or Rainbow and not one of the starter kits.
    The DNN and Rainbow people actually give a damn about what their product and maintain it. What it translates to is that if they care enough to be contributing and volunteering time and effort into an open source project, that means they are serious.

    You will also find people who will help you extend it or implement it if you are more of a business person than a technologist. The future of business is changing and people who utlize what is out there the ones that will succeed.

    Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:04 PM
  • User1117228605 posted

    well, if you're asking me which is the best way to go, I'm down with what's already there. All of my sites are in dnn.

    I think what he's asking is something that uses the best features and enhancements from asp.net 2.0. Where are the web parts? where are the skinning/theming? the new asp.net v2.0  are not being utilitzed...of course they could, and it would be a easier feat to take one of these solutions and implement these new things, but I also understand wanting to start from ground zero with nothing but 2.0 / clean state / nothing but 2.0 stuff.

    Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:04 PM
  • User296760538 posted
    The same goals that can be done in DNN/Rainbow can be done in asp.net 2.0. It may be faster to do it in one or the other. Costs associated with this are really what make it a choice. Sometimes the features of asp.net 2.0 aren't important to getting an application running and getting customers to use it.

    Looking for features or attributes when making a choice for technology is a good idea, but sometimes looking too deeply into features distracts from the goals.


    Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:46 PM
  • User1117228605 posted

    This might be far fetched or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. I want to know if this is possible before I spend a ton of time trying to make it happen. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>


    The product we currently have that is in 1.1 has everything in 1 solution and 1 website project. This is a huge solution and takes forever to load and is hard to manage with many developers. <o:p></o:p>

    If so does anyone have any information on this? Like a tutorial or an article.

    one think to realize is that code compiled/running under v2.0 can be compiled class by class, and also all of it can be compiled up front. ...I've always noticed a slow startup time for v1.1 projects. With vs.net you'd compile the .cs/.vb files, but the first time it is requested (and also under IIS pool recycles) it compiles the markup files (ascx, aspx, etc)

    Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:16 PM
  • User877358749 posted

    Thanks for all the advice. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>


    DeveloperMCDBA is correct. I don't want to use DNN or Rainbow. It seems that this is the solution people want to give anytime anyone has a website project question.  <o:p></o:p>

    My current application is already written in 1.1 and it works fine except that it is one huge solution. Well DNN is also a huge solution and gets puts me back in the same spot as I am in now. <o:p></o:p>

    I want more of a separation of wrapper (the header, footer, nav) along with security in one solution and the modules in their separate solutions. When a user logs into the application they would select the correct solution and then the security would be passes to that module. <o:p></o:p>

    I DO NOT want 1 huge solution with tons of web projects (1.x) or web sites (2.0). I want to separate them into separate solutions and allow each programmer to manage their own module and deploy it seamlessly. <o:p></o:p>

    The problem I come across is that security has to pass from one assembly to another when you are talking about logins and security. Also you don’t want to build a separate Master Page and Template for each module. So I have to figure out how to separate them into Solutions and use the same master page and template along with a universal security layer. <o:p></o:p>

    I hope I am explaining myself well enough. Development is easy when it's a small website or a small portal but when you have huge web applications that require many developers on many modules it gets much  much harder to visualize then you can imagine. <o:p></o:p>

    Any ideas? Please… Not DNN or Rainbow.  I am looking for Methodology and design.


    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    Friday, December 16, 2005 10:37 PM
  • User1117228605 posted

    I'd be curious to see if you would notice any performance gain in upgrading your current app to 2.0, since with it, you can set each page to be its own assembly...in which case one page would be loaded at a time, rather than a monolithic huge load at the beginning.... again, that's just my curiosity, maybe not even something you want to consider...

    From what you've said, you may want to do this... segment your application off to sub sites...for example, create a site for each department or some way of separating things off...I don't know what exactly you're dealing with, so you'll have to let me know if you'd like me to elaborate more on this.

    ...but the key to this is to use the same database for all the sites. The most important part to this would be security (membership/roles data). Also, I'm sure there will be things that are shared between the sites, again all realated sites pointing to one db would be ideal.

    give each of your webs their own sub domain:


    If you have such a load, you could have each sub web/domain on separate servers. You can also set up in your web.config or machine.config to use a single server/sql server for use of state (sessions variables, etc.).

    Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:33 AM
  • User877358749 posted

    DeveloperMCDBA,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

    The DB would be the same. I do like the idea of sub domains for each department. That’s a good idea and it seems so obvious that I don’t know why I didn’t consider that before.<o:p></o:p>

    Remember that each department has developers that basically work on their stuff. So they should not have to bring in this huge solution file. <o:p></o:p>

    I would like to break up each Module/Department into a separate solution. BUT what would I do to keep the wrapper (header, footer, nav) the same on each module. Those are common across all modules. I wouldn’t want to recreate them in each one. That would be a pain to manage.

    It would be nice to create a kind of wrapper solution that was an empty shell other then the header, footer, nav and other common stuff.  Then have a solution for the each of the other modules that used this wrapper as a skin. <o:p></o:p>

    I thought of IFrame but I would rather not. Any ideas on that. <o:p></o:p>

    I think you are one of the only people I have posed the question to that actually know what I am trying to do here. <o:p></o:p>


    <o:p> </o:p>

    <o:p> </o:p>

    Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:48 AM
  • User1117228605 posted

    yeah, frames are so 1990s!

    Your common denominator sounds like a good candidate for asp.net 2.0 master pages. I'd create a separate project that has all the most common denominators.

    Each department / developer group could pull this master project down from source control when opening their project solution.

    Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:27 PM
  • User-1557892389 posted

    I have a solution for you for running multiple websites off the same file base, try this:



    Monday, February 22, 2010 1:48 AM