Hi,

I have upgraded my pc from win98se to xphome. I know that you need xp pro to
run IIS, and PWS won't work with xp. I need to run .asp scripts and connect
to access 2000 databases purely for the purposes of developing and testing
my site on my computer prior to upload.

I have dowloaded apache 2.0 for windows and installed it. As far as I can
tell it's working, as http://localhost gives me the apache test page.

How do I configure Apache to run c:/inetpub/wwwroot/index.asp as the default
page? Is there a duffers guide to installing Apache anywhere that I should
read?

Thanks

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"David" <david.brown@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:KOrJc.14$L_6.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> I have upgraded my pc from win98se to xphome. I know that you need xp pro
to
> run IIS, and PWS won't work with xp. I need to run .asp scripts and
connect
> to access 2000 databases purely for the purposes of developing and testing
> my site on my computer prior to upload.
>

but apache won't let you run asp scripts. If you want to do asp development
and testing on your PC I'm afraid you made the wrong choice going for xp
home.

> I have dowloaded apache 2.0 for windows and installed it. As far as I can
> tell it's working, as http://localhost gives me the apache test page.
>
> How do I configure Apache to run c:/inetpub/wwwroot/index.asp as the
default
> page? Is there a duffers guide to installing Apache anywhere that I should
> read?
>

look for a file called httpd.conf. If you can't figure it out from that,
best to RTFM

> Thanks
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Andy Fish said:

> but apache won't let you run asp scripts. If you want to do asp developmen
t
> and testing on your PC I'm afraid you made the wrong choice going for xp
> home.

Yes it will. Please don't give out false information. ;)

http://www.apache-asp.org/

--
Eggs

-Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Eggs Zachtly <eggsUNDERSCOREHEREzachtly@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4v26xgcgtp13.dlg@sneupie.eingang.org:

> Andy Fish said:
> 
>
> Yes it will. Please don't give out false information. ;)
>
> http://www.apache-asp.org/

Do you feel like explaining the difference between ASP and SSI?  Are they
essentially the same thing implemented through a different interface?


--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
 news:Xns95291CB3E5275nobodynotmailcom@61
.9.191.5:

Nevermind, I think I got it.  With SSI, you're limited to a predefined
selection of commands, whereas ASP is including the output of PERL code.

[quoting the manual]
SSI is certainly not a replacement for CGI, or other technologies used for
generating dynamic web pages. But it is a great way to add small amounts of
dynamic content to pages, without doing a lot of extra work.



--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Eggs Zachtly" <eggsUNDERSCOREHEREzachtly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4v26xgcgtp13.dlg@sneupie.eingang.org...
> Andy Fish said:
> 
development[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> Yes it will. Please don't give out false information. ;)
>
> http://www.apache-asp.org/
>

true enough, but developing and testing on a third party simulation of ASP
to deploy on IIS would be taking a bit of a risk.

In any case, I notice this only supports PERL as the scripting language. I
would expect a relative newbie used to the microsoft environment almost
certainly uses vbscript for ASP pages.

> --
> Eggs
>
> -Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Andy Fish said:

> "Eggs Zachtly" <eggsUNDERSCOREHEREzachtly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4v26xgcgtp13.dlg@sneupie.eingang.org... 
> development 
>
> true enough, but developing and testing on a third party simulation of ASP
> to deploy on IIS would be taking a bit of a risk.

Deploying IIS is taking a bit of a risk.  ;)

>
> In any case, I notice this only supports PERL as the scripting language. I
> would expect a relative newbie used to the microsoft environment almost
> certainly uses vbscript for ASP pages.

Point I was making though, is that ASP as well as SSI will run on Apache.

IMO using IIS is a MUCH worse choice for a server than Apache (Security).


--
Eggs

Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:01:17 GMT, Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com>
wrote:

>Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns95291CB3E5275nobodynotmailcom@61
.9.191.5:
>
>Nevermind, I think I got it.  With SSI, you're limited to a predefined
>selection of commands, whereas ASP is including the output of PERL code.
>

That's mostly correct. ASP itself is scripting-language-agnostic, but
you have to write in a language supported by your server. Under
Apache::ASP, your only choice is perl, while under Microsoft
implementations you have access to any "ActiveX Scripting Engine"
installed on the server, which by default is VBScript and Microsoft's
slightly-quirky version of JavaScript.

Once apon a time there was an Apache module which could allow Win32
Apache to support ASP the way Microsoft does it, but I'm not sure what
became of it; I certainly can't seem to find it now.

Interestingly, Microsoft's ASP implementation handles a subset of SSI
within ASP documents.

Take care,
-Claire

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Claire Tucker <fake@invalid.invalid> wrote in
 news:h31mf090kehblp2gpvel6u3qcr0jljargm@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:01:17 GMT, Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com>
> wrote:
 
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's mostly correct. ASP itself is scripting-language-agnostic, but
> you have to write in a language supported by your server...

Ah, OK.  So it's conveivable that I could write an interface to implement
ASP for Ruby.  I recently discovered Ruby, and I'm very impressed.


> Once apon a time there was an Apache module which could allow Win32
> Apache to support ASP the way Microsoft does it...

That sounds like something.  I'll be looking for that, if only to get an
idea of how it's done.


> Interestingly, Microsoft's ASP implementation handles a subset of SSI
> within ASP documents.

hmm.. I'm not sure about the full implications of that yet, but it
certainly sounds interesting.  Thanks for the info.


--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 03:10:45 GMT, Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com>
wrote:
>Claire Tucker <fake@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:h31mf090kehblp2gpvel6u3qcr0jljargm@
4ax.com:
> 
>
>That sounds like something.  I'll be looking for that, if only to get an
>idea of how it's done.
>

I believe they used the standard Windows scripting API (also used by
Windows Script Host and ASP) to handle the script, and re-implemented
the rest. "The rest" includes the handler which takes the .asp scripts
and expands the literal HTML to Response.Write() calls which can be
passed to the script engine and re-implementations of the Response,
Request, Session and Application objects which talk to Apache instead
of IIS and which are placed into the "script namespace" using the
scripting API.

There were a few quirks in the handling of the Request object, I seem
to remember, which is inevitable when it comes to re-implementing an
API for which there is no documentation of the internals.

The module DLL file is apasp136.dll, intended for Apache 1.3.6. I
think one reason that it has faded into obscurity is that no-one
maintained it for newer Apache releases. There are a few references to
it in Google's database, but none of them particularly useful; all I
see are mailing list and forum posts about configuring it, mostly in
languages I can't read...

All the best,
-Claire

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]