4 ms·
Yes, I am quite sure you are wrong to assume that. I'd wager 99.99% of all .net shops in the world deploy onto a platform that can run IIS. EDIT: as to the "w
by kreeben 4y ago
Yes, I am quite sure you are wrong to assume that.
I'd wager 99.99% of all .net shops in the world deploy onto a platform that can run IIS.
EDIT: as to the "why", I think it's because IIS is such an intrinsic part of the .net ecosystem that it's basically inevitable your asp.net app will become hosted by it.
- alexjplant 4y ago> I'd wager 99.99% of all .net shops in the world deploy onto a platform that can run IIS. > EDIT: as to the "why", I think it's because IIS is such an intrinsic part of the .net ecosystem that it's basically inevitable your asp.net app will become hosted by it. This was true a decade ago but isn't any longer with the advent of .NET Core. Even legacy dinosaurs are figuring out that you can package a .NET Core app as an image and deploy it on OpenShift.
- kreeben 4y agoExcuse me but did you just call me a legacy dinosaur ;) Anyways, you are right about the fact you don't _need_ IIS to run your asp.net core app. It's just a very convenient proxy to your app, especially if you need things like sessions and, what's that thing called, ah yes, authentication. >> OpenShift I mean, if you need a cluster of machines, for whatever reason, then why not use that?
- Traubenfuchs 4y agoWouldn‘t non-legacy .net shops deploy .net core in Docker which uses kestrel though?