Here's a simple challenge for you. Create a command line app (your csproj file should say Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk"), ask the user to input a port number at runtime. Use this port number to start an ASP.NET service.
I have not had any luck to pull all the right nuget dependencies to do that so far. The only way to run asp.net app I could find is switching your whole project to be Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web"
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/developer/weba...
That's just an example. The point is mixing a regular console app with an asp.net service.
2. In program.cs add the following lines at the top:
Console.Write("Port number:");
var port = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
app.Run($"https://localhost:{port}");
A `Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web` project is still a console app. The "web" variant has some other default packages and (crucially) it has some other defaults for how to compile files such as cshtml.
Several people have pointed out how a web app in .NET 5/6 is really a console app which only starts a web server configured with an application and waits for it to complete (i.e. shut down).
It really is that simple.
When I said console app, I literally meant using the project that you would create if you do `dotnet new console`.
To copy from my other comment:
That is exactly the thing. I do not want to have the Sdk=...Web/Worker. Imagine this scenario, you started a new project with the Sdk targeting Worker. Then you need that binary to also target web. What do you do?
- If you switch the project to Sdk=...Web, you won't have the dependencies to build the worker services.
- If you keep it as Sdk=...Worker, you won't have the dependencies to build asp.net
As I and several people in this thread has pointed out to you, the application the resulting application is not a "web" application. It is a console app that launches a webserver.
The Sdk (without web) is not designed to compile cshtml and/or razor source files. It has nothing to do with package dependencies.
If you do want to start of with a console app sdk, then look at "minimal API". You simply add package references to Microsoft.AspNetCore and Microsoft.AspNetCore.App to your console app, and then you can start using the minimal API samples. They will also launch a website.
The example I showed you above was literally adding two lines and changing one line; and then you had a console app which asked the port and launched a webserver on that port.
If you start from a console app, you will not have build targets configured for cdhtml and razor files. However, to prove that you can launch a webserver the same way you can do this (yes I have tried it and it works):
1) Add dependencies to your "console sdk" project:
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore" Version="2.2.0" />
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.App" Version="2.2.8" />
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Builder;
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
app.MapGet("/", () => "Hello World!");
app.Run();
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFramework>net6.0</TargetFramework>
<Nullable>enable</Nullable>
<ImplicitUsings>enable</ImplicitUsings>
<OutputType>exe</OutputType>
</PropertyGroup>
<ItemGroup>
<FrameworkReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.App" />
</ItemGroup>
</Project>
Read the console args and configure the web app with a port as desired.
This still begs the question, or my original point still stands—why framework reference vs. nuget reference? I'm sure there's a perfectly rationale explanation, but this in itself, having at least two "official" ways of managing dependencies (framework reference vs. package reference on nuget), it's kind of a "code smell" imo.
Why? .NET Core 1.x tried making everything a Nuget package and it was a disaster. ASP.NET is big which meant a huge number of dependencies, easy to create conflicts, long restore and build times.
It was much better to just include ASP.NET Core in the box with .NET and simplify it down to a single reference. And most people use the web SDK which does it for you so they don't even need that.
The other question is, why isn't what you posted the default, but defaulting to this <Project Sdk=...>? To me, it's a lot more intuitive, signaling that each project can have multiple framework references, vs. just one SDK attribute.
Make the simple easy. Make the complex possible.
From Python: have one way of doing things
From Go: explicit is bette than implicit.
Is Sdk=... is just a short cut to pull in a handful of framework references? Or are there actually more things happening under the hood?
Python really isn't a great choice for making your case. "Have one obvious way of doing things" has become an ironic meme since forever, and toolchaining and dependency management has traditionally been a hot mess (yes, even with pip and virtualenv, just not the total clusterfudge it was before. And don't get me started on pipenv.), and only gotten better recently with 3rd party tools like poetry, or even conda.
It's no different to e.g. create-react-app vs npm install react.
thats because they are not directly on nuget. at least not in the included one, you need a framework reference, since for packaging reasons they have a runtime and a "web runtime" (kinda like that)
https://docs.microsoft.com/de-de/aspnet/core/fundamentals/ta...