What's the simplest and most effective way to selectively redirect HTTP requests to your ASP.NET page to its HTTPS equivalent? For example, if my page site URL is [URL], I want to redirect some (or all) page requests to [URL] What's the easiest way to do that?
Is it possible to send multiple HTTP requests asynchronously to an ASP.NET web site or any other web server using .NET ? And, then. collect responses from those requests as they come using .NET asynchronous paradigm ? Is it possible ? Or would there still be limit of max 2 HTTP connections from .NET using HTTP ?
For an ASP.NET 4.0 / IIS7 web app, I would like to support compressed HTTP requests. Basically, I would like to support clients that would add Content-Encoding: gzip in the request headers, and compress the body accordingly.
I'm currently reading a lot about node.js. There is a frequent comparison between servers using a traditional thread per request model (Apache), and servers that use an event loop (Nginx, node, Tornado).
I would like to learn in detail about how a request is processed in ASP.NET - from the point it is received in http.sys all the way up to it being processed in ASP.NET itself. I've found the MSDN documentation on http.sys and IIS a little lacking, but perhaps my google-fu is weak today. So far, the best resource I have found is a post on Thomas Marquardt's Blog.
Could anyone shed more light on the topic, or point me to any other resources?
Here's the big picture. We're running a server in IIS 6 that hosts several web sites and applications, and we're in the process of moving the whole thing to a different data center with a slightly different setup. We've notified our users and updated our DNS info so that theoretically everyone will be happily hitting the new server from day 1, but we know that someone will inevitably fall through the cracks.
The powers that be want a "Listener" page/handler that will receive all requests to the server and log the entire request to a text file, including (especially) POST data.
That's where I'm stuck. I don't know how to implement a single handler that will receive all requests to the server. I vaguely understand IIS 6 redirection options, but they all seem to lose the POST data on the redirect. I also know a little about IIS 6's built-in logging, but it ignores POST data as well.
Is there a simple(ish) way to route all requests to the server so that they all hit a single handler, while maintaining post data?
The objective of this component is to be able to forward whatever HTTP requests it receives to forward to a different server based on the parameters but keeping the URL and POST data intact. For example:
If the component receives
It will return the response from either
where XYZ can be valid name of the page. I think I can probably individually create each page to do a Response.Redirect but i am wondering if there is a more generic way to do this? In addition, is this something I have to configure on the IIS level rather than code level?
I have a long poll HTTP request using ASP.NET 4, MVC 2 and AsyncController. If a user closes their browser and kills the HTTP connection without the request completing, I'd like to know about it and completely clean up after them. If I don't, the open and incomplete requests just sit there and eventually IIS stops accepting new requests.
You can simulate my long running HTTP request by making a normal ASP.NET application with a page that has a Thread.Sleep. Even if you close the browser, the request carries on as if it hasn't.
There is a property called Response.IsClientConnected that gets switched to false if the client disconnects, and I can poll this to achieve the desired effect but it's not very clean and I'd like to avoid polling. Is there a way of getting notified when this happens rather than having to poll this property?
I use four different update panels, that use the same timer as trigger.
1) Will the 4 update panels create 4 different HTTP requests to the server? 2) I'm using 4 different panels as the controls are located in different parts of the page, is there a way of putting them in the same update panel? 3) Is this a good coding practice?
I am calling a web service in my aspx page. the web service (written in java) is acting as a middleware between my system and another system (Siebel) to which I send services and get response for these services. some requests are synchronous. Sometimes when invoking a method the response takes a long time to respond, so a time out exception is thrown.
The problem is that the web service is receiving the same request many times despite I am calling it only once.In my log file and database entries it is clear that the request is called only once. but in the middleware and Siebel side they are receving four or five requests for the same request sent by me.
Is this a bug in asp.net. is it possible that the server where my application is deployed is sending the request many times when not getting the response.Note: iam using Visual studion 2005. the application is deployed to windows server 2003.Iam not discussing the problem of time out. iam asking about the duplicate issue.
A customer wants us to create an ajax-enabled web application that can be used to manage their IT environment (Active directory, mail, file security, ...). However, as the team that will support the web application does not know anything about these IT systems, they would like to split the coding so that all interfacing with the IT environment is done via PowerShell, which is known by the administrators of these systems. This would mean that if new functionality is required, the web team can just create an additional web page and interface and use PowerShell scripts that get created by technically skilled people in that specific topic (ie mail administrators). I don't see an issue using this approach for requests like adding a user where latency is not an issue, but I do wonder if this is feasible for interactive content with Ajax.
Ie I would like to implement a google suggest like search for AD users. This would mean that ie for every x keystrokes (or x seconds whatever approach I implement) an Ajax request will be made and the web application or web service will than use PowerShell to get the data. Taken into account that up to about 75 users can use this feature, is this something that would work? Not only performace-wise but also the number of connections (I read about the Powershell 5 remote session limit but also that it could be put to a higher number)? The example above is probably the most resource heavy Ajax requests (and can be optimized by caching), so taken into account they don't want this nice feature, are basic PowerShell scripts in ajax request really an option. My gut feeling is telling me this is a no-go, but I don't want to exclude the option just because it's not something I usually would do.
If a user makes a second request to the same Web Service method while the first request is already running, is there a way to simply stop the execution of the first request and discard it immediately?
Usually what happens is users get impatient and click on a button 10 times when there's a performance blip in the system, which only makes things worse since the system now has to process 10 queued requests (the first 9 of which are now irrelevant) before any results are returned.
am new to web services and have a quick question. I've some data (an c# class object) that needs to be shared between two different users (of my web service) . all the methods in the web service have a parameter called "sessionkey" which can be used to know what data to share.
I've got a WCF web service that runs fine at the moment but there is talk about using it very heavily soon. As part of it's normal process it writes a file out, then reads it back in again (don't ask why, I know it's stupid). I'm concerned that if we start hitting it with lots of requests then the following might happen.
1. Request 1 writes the file out.
2. Request 2 comes in and overwrites the file.
3. Request 1 reads the file back in but this is now the wrong file.
My understanding is that the requests would naturally queue up so that request 2 wouldn't start until request 1 had finished, but I'm not totally sure.