This project is read-only.

BlogEngine 2 Installation woes unnecessary

Topics: ASP.NET 2.0
Feb 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Installing BlogEngine 2 was unnecessarily trying, all because the generated web file is based on .Net 2.x; but higher versions of .Net are not backwardly compatible. So, if you are installing BlogEngine2 in a subdirectory, and the root directory is already confirgured for a different version of .Net based on the offerings of your host provider, then, it won't run, throwing errors and exceptions left and right. After many hours and days of frustration, including futily messing with "inheritance parameters" in the web config files, you have no other option but to move on to WordPress--not even your host provider can help.

The solution is so simple: why don't the authors of BlogEngine 2 produce different webs packages based on the most common and popular .Net versions, including one for the latest (.Net 4)? At download, the user would be prompted for the correct version of .Net being used by him/her (which (s)he can find out from his/her host server if necessary), especially if BlogEngine will be installed in a subdirectory.

Eventually, I opened the downloaded and expanded BlogEngine2 as a Web in VisualStudio 2010 in .Net 4 configuration (which is the version that my root is based on at my host's); I was prompted to change the Web to .Net4; I accepted, and the resulting BlogEngine2 Web ran just fine as advertised. This was after a lot of hair-pulling research and help from a Specialist; IIS 7 Manager was no help in switching .Net confugurations, as was directed.

The simplicity of the correction is what makes this problem unnecessary. Once up and running, I actually found BlogEngine2 more intutitive and faster than WordPress3.x, this being the very first time I was using either.

Feb 6, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Quick google search ( .net 4.0) would bring you posts like this on converting to .net 4.0, but you don't even have to convert, simply replacing web.config with .net 4.0 version from setup folder should let you run BE 2.0 under .net 4.0 without change. It is not "officially" supported though, because you can run BE in so many configurations that supporting all possible scenarios is very hard. For example, you can run it in Monodevelop on Linux if you wish or using Razor pages with just a few tweaks - but making it all part of out-of-the-box package would be really hard to maintain.

Feb 6, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Thanks. I understand. I did Google, though, and ended up with the things I mentioned above.

How about having all this info for the user at the point of Download--or at least, pointers to such? A simple caveat--just like what you have stated above--on the Download page would save a lot of angst, don't you agree?

Thanks again. Just wish I saw this days ago!

Feb 6, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Yes, totally agree.

Feb 6, 2011 at 9:28 PM

What needs to be tweaked to use Razor with BE 2.0?