[Pkg-mono-devel] libapache2-mod-mono

[Pablo Fischer]

--=-dO3YP+5BgmJ7VEXJDftj
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Fabian,

>       * Company A wants to launch an ASP.NET-based web site using Mono.
>         They have the resources to buy a server and set it up
>         themselves. They want to host only one site on the server. Their
>         webmaster will keep the site up-to date.
The sysadmin create a 'workspace' (alias pointing to /var/www for
example) and tell the webmaster to upload all the .asp files to
/var/www.

The webmaster needed to touch the apache? No.

>       * Company B wants to launch an ASP.NET-based web site using Mono.
>         They have the resources to buy a server and set it up
>         themselves. They are planning to host two sites on the server,
>         to serve both their customers and their business partners. Their
>         marketing team has web designers who will construct the visual
>         aspects of the site, and a group of people who will insert the
>         content and keep it up-to-date. They have some skilled
>         programmers who will write the code to drive the sites. However,
>         they have a company policy that server and OS maintenance is the
>         task of the IT department, so no one else must gain root access
>         to the server.
Again. If marketing team needs another workspace, they can call to their
IT department and thell them to setup another workspace. Does marketing
team or designers needed to touch Apache?. No, just the sysadmin/root
(again).

>       * Company C wants to launch an ASP.NET-based web site using Mono.
>         They contact their hosting provider and explain their limited
>         budget. The service provider offers hosting in a shared
>         environment. Company C will produce the site themselves, while
>         the hosting provider will make sure the server is in good shape,
>         the software is correctly installed, security updates for the
>         system software are applied, and the shared environment provides
>         complete and secure separation between customers' data.
Again :-P.

>       * Company D wants to launch a web site. They outsource everything
>         to a service provider. The service provider hosts their ASP.NET
>         web site using Mono in a shared server environment, and provides
>         a web-based update tool. They must assure Company D that there
>         is no risk of interfering with other web sites on the same
>         server.
This is a problem. If they have everything in one domain (domain1.com),
but if they have a domain for each customer this should not be a problem
at all.

>       * Joe User is a customer at a small ISP. He chose it because they
>         offer ASP.NET hosting with Mono. Joe can upload his data using
>         SFTP into his public_html directory. The ISP assigns him one web
>         application alias prefix, /joeuser. Joe can then create more
>         aliases under that namespace.
???.. The sysadmin can create a alias prefix to
/home/joe/public_html_asp/ and that's all, Joe can create any directory
as he wants,=20

http://foobar.com/joe (/home/joe/public_html_asp/)
http://foobar.com/joe/school (/home/joe/public_html_asp/school)
http://foobar.com/joe/work (/home/joe/public_html_asp/work).

And cause you (sysadmin) are keeping ALL the JOE public directories with
mod_mono, there's no need to setup more alias or handle more alias for
that user.

>       * Joe is also setting up his own company, Joe.biz, and he wants to
>         run his company web site using ASP.NET and Mono. His ISP creates
>         a virtual host for him, http://www.joe.biz/. Using .htaccess
>         files, Joe can create any web application alias he wants, and it
>         won't interfere with other virtual hosts on the same server.
He can, why not? Just have a .htaccess.

Now, reading all the scenarios, we can mix two solutions: root admin can
setup the 'main' configuration for a user (foo, companyN, etc) and the
user can setup more applications under his workspace.

For example:
<VirtualHost *>
     ServerName foobar.com
     ServerAlias www.foobar.com foobar.com=20
       <Directory /home/user/public_asp>
         SetHandler mono
           <IfModule mod_dir.c>
              DirectoryIndex index.aspx
           </IfModule>
       </Directory>
</VirtualHost>

With this configuration (in /etc/mono-server/mono-server-hosts.conf) you
give any options to user (/home/user) to setup ANY http directives with
.htaccess and does not matters if a user wants a foobar.com/monodoc
cause you (sysadmin) are setting mono to the /home/user/public_asp
directories.

So, we can continue keeping the mono-server-hosts.conf with no changes.

> Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. Instead of a symlink, though,
> I'd have /etc/apache2/modules-available/mod_mono.conf look like this:
>=20
> AddType application/x-asp.net .aspx .ashx .asmx .ascx .config .ascx
> DirectoryIndex index.aspx
> Include /etc/mono-server/mono-server-hosts.conf

Sounds great!.

I'll try it.

> While I'm at it, why is mono-server-update.conf not named update-mono-
> server.conf like update-exim4.conf, update-rc.d, update-apache2-modules,
> etc?

Bah, I think the same, and should be renamed. I'll rename it.

Pablo
--=20
Pablo Fischer Sandoval (pablo [arroba/at] pablo.com.mx)
Fingerprint:  5973 0F10 543F 54AE 1E41  EC81 0840 A10A 74A4 E5C0
http://www.pablo.com.mx=20
http://www.debianmexico.org

--=-dO3YP+5BgmJ7VEXJDftj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada
	digitalmente

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBFS77CEChCnSk5cARAuE0AKCBabEH3tFEnjt5wEb/5ZEGpupHewCfcklX
KoN7CkJeDVyA7MZAO1Nz5nI=
=DHSk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-dO3YP+5BgmJ7VEXJDftj--