asp and apache

[Stryker]

I was in the process of having this company my friend works for transfer their server off of the winnt 4.5 backoffice server and onto a linux server. They were begining to be unhappy with the general performance of the server. The time it takes to download the users' profiles for the domain controller, the large pause off iis when nobody has connected for a few minutes. I was trying to tell them that everything they wanted to do could be done in linux. But they had all of their website stuff in asp. A few weeks later I discovered the nifty utility "asp2php". It didn't work as nicely as I had hoped, it insisted there were errors in the code. While i was trying to convert it to php for them, I accidently discovered that apache already has support for asp built in, it just doesn't go bragging about it anywhere. I realized this when i went to http://server1 instead of http://server1/default.php. So I now have them trying out a new RedHat server. They are keeping their old one up just in case, until they know that this will work. I can understand this of course. Just thought i'd drop by and tell everyone we have 1 more company on the linux list.

[voidmain]

Some people slap *.asp extentions on their HTML even if there really is no ASP code in the file (makes them feel more important I guess). But yes, there are Apache modules that can handle ASP. However, I have found that manual conversion from ASP to PHP to be very easy in most cases.

[zooloo]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
I have found that manual conversion from ASP to PHP to be very easy in most cases.

True, but then they wouldn't be trying out Red Hat.

So I say "Nice one Stryker".

 

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
Some people slap *.asp extentions on their HTML even if there really is no ASP code in the file (makes them feel more important I guess). But yes, there are Apache modules that can handle ASP. However, I have found that manual conversion from ASP to PHP to be very easy in most cases.

No they weren't just extentions, i looked over it myself. Apparently it was the only way they knew how to do database access. (microsoft access 2000...) And I did go through and examine some of the code, I didn't know that RedHat ships with asp support though. So i'm transfering out of win2k myself. It's just my home network, but I had to have asp for my site also. Now that I can, i say goodbye windows (again).

[voidmain]

And you were able to utilize the Access database? I see that *is* possible using ODBC but it worked right out of the box with ASP? If so that's cool. I was reading on the PHP forums about getting Access to work through ODBC but that it was slow. Best thing to do is to convert it to MySQL. But if it works and comparable to their NT setup then all the better. If they decide to make a complete switch I'm sure you would want to convert the database as well.

Of course if they needed non web connections to the database for updating from their Access program I have not done that with MySQL, I have done it with PostgreSQL however.

[Stryker]

well i didn't do a filedsn or systemdsn or anything, i just used the provider=...;database=...; and such. i hate DSNs and never want to have to use them. This way is much more portable

[voidmain]

But the Access database physically resides on the Linux box, and the ASP on the Linux box can access the data in the Access database?  To me that is the interesting part.

[Stryker]

aw man... i just figured something out... There was this service I made a few months ago. It was supposed to redirect everything on port 80 to my windows machine. I disabled it, i just wanted to see if i could make such a thing. but i remember restarting the computer today, which brought it back on. and i had the site on my windows machine to test some things. I realized this when i changed the code and got an error and it linked me to a  microsoft site, and saying IIS syntax error - line 31 - view.asp... figures. I didn't mean to get anyone's hopes up i'm sorry. Although I have the next 3 days to just sit around, i'll be translating the site to php so they don't think i'm a liar or anything.

[voidmain]

I thought it sounded a little fishy (dodgy in England) but not having tried it under Apache 2.0 I couldn't really say one way or the other. You could always leave it pointing the the IIS box until you get everything converted. Then you could say "see, this thing is so close it even gives MS/IIS errors".  

[Stryker]

No, I can't go and tell them it's great because it gives me errors that microsoft gave me. I have to fix the little problem ( a misspelled keyword) and then say it even fixes it.    
It won't take long to convert it though, it'll be done in a few hours (i'm doing it for free, i just want them without the nt server)