What is the difference between configuring mod-mono virtual hosts via a webapp file and apache site configuration?

I am using mod-mono to deploy an asp.net mvc application on Ubuntu Server 10.04. The following packages were installed: mono-apache-server4 libapache2-mod-mono apache2 .

There are several blogs that configure mod-mono virtual hosts through the Apache configuration available for sites. For example, I could change the configuration of /etc/apache2/sites-available/default as follows:

 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost MonoApplications "/:/var/www" MonoServerPath /usr/bin/mod-mono-server4 ... more default configuration 

But there are also sites that recommend using the webapp file to configure the mod-mono virtual host. For example, I could modify /etc/mono-server4/debian.webapp as follows:

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

Both approaches, however, need to configure apache site SetHandler mono configuration.

The only difference I noticed is that in order to configure sites I must explicitly define mod-mono-server4 (otherwise the system tries to start an instance of server2 that is not installed). When configured through site configuration, it also seems that there is another mono_server process.

I think I should go with the webapp option, but are there any “big” differences between the two approaches? Is the webapp configuration configuration specific or why are there two options?

+4
source share
1 answer

The Webapp configuration file approach can also be used with stand-alone XSP4 without the need for apache. For example, you can run:

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

And you will get XSP4 working with your webapp configuration file.

+1
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1492031/


All Articles