Installing a web site on a new server

Here are some blog posts that have been useful to me lately when I got caught out installing a website on a new server (I will eventually get that automated build and deploy process actually performing the deploy step successfully!!)

The configuration section ‘system.web.extensions’ cannot be read because it is missing a section declaration:

While installing a website on a new Windows Server I came across this error. In short, it was because the App Pool was set up as a .NET 2.0 application rather than a 4.0. The blog post explains what was going on and how to fix it.

[Resolved] Could not load file or assembly ‘XXXXX’ or one of its dependencies. An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format:

Although this didn’t help me in the end, it does suggest a solution. In my case, because of a third-party dependency that requires an x86 build, it couldn’t be used. In time that dependency will be removed, in the meantime the following was more helpful to me…

Could not load file or assembly ‘PresentationCore’ or one of its dependencies. An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. : A solution:

This post did give me the pointer I needed to the setting that had to be changed to get the web site working.

Contradictory messages

While attempting to create a database project in Visual Studio 2008 against a SQL Server 2008 database I got a rather odd error message. The dialog used to create the project requests information about the SQL Server database. It clearly states “The server version must be 2005 or later”. No problem, I thought. So I put in the information about my SQL Server and database in the dialog and tested the connection. So far so good. But as soon as I hit the “Okay” button I got a new message. Apparently, “Only servers up to Microsoft SQL Server 2005 are supported.”


How do you return error conditions?

A recent poll on Code Project asked: How do you return error conditions?

I was disappointed to find that in the event of a “critical error that leaves the app in an undefined state” a shocking 5% of people would “cover up the mess and don’t say anything”. I think I would be shocked at even just one person responding with that answer. What is it with these people anyway? Do I have to explain why that is really unwise?

A greater percentage of people chose that answer in the event of non-critical errors, too. While the errors aren’t so bad, someone, somewhere will have to eventually clean up the mess.

It reminds me of a charting component that a company I used to work for bought. I evaluated various charting components and only one did absolutely every type of we wanted. However, in my report I did indicate that the component would not return any error status or throw an exeption when it failed so it was up to the developer who was using it to somehow work out if the component actually did what was asked of it. I just wonder how much more money was spent working around the problems the component created rather than benefit from it solving the existing problem.


NOTE: This post was rescued from the Google Cache. The original date was Monday, 23rd April, 2007