You can run multiple asp.net core services on different ports on same machine. You could create an over-arching console application to automate the same, or you can do it with a simple script.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/developer/weba...

Nope. Not the same thing. Again, I want them to be in the same binary. Like the example I gave you, have the user input a port number *at runtime*, then use that port to start an asp.net service.

That's just an example. The point is mixing a regular console app with an asp.net service.

1. Create a new web project (it is actually a console app)

2. In program.cs add the following lines at the top:

    Console.Write("Port number:");
    var port = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());

3. Change the bottom line App.Run()` to

    app.Run($"https://localhost:{port}");

You now have an application which asks for a port and launches your empty website on that 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.

I can confidently tell you that what you put here won't work. Try it.

I did. It works. The above code lines are cut directly from a test project that I made.

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.

The whole point here is that the project does not target the Sdk.Web thing. Yours only works because the project is targeting Sdk.Web (instead of Sdk).

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

The "Sdk.Web thing" is the way the project is built.

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" />

2) Replace program.cs with this (this is the entire app):

    using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Builder;
    var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
    var app = builder.Build();
    app.MapGet("/", () => "Hello World!");
    app.Run();

Voila. A web server.

Can you build with just these package references? because I did exactly did a while ago and I could not.

This is almost the correct answer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30667145 is more accurate.

Here you go:

  <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>

Just create an empty ASP.NET Core project, change the SDK, add a FrameworkReference and a OutputType.

Read the console args and configure the web app with a port as desired.

Thanks! This is what I was looking for (not anymore, sorry switched to a different language/ecosystem for this project).

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.

Because ASP.NET Core is a framework that is installed with .NET. It isn’t a set of Nuget packages.

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.

What about the option to just make everything asp.net one single nuget package? And how come other ecosystems/languages don't have this issue? What's the difference?

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.

>What about the option to just make everything asp.net one single nuget package? And how come other ecosystems/languages don't have this issue? What's the difference?

It's no different to e.g. create-react-app vs npm install react.

You're searching for ways to make things more difficult than they need to be.

Make the simple easy. Make the complex possible.

Disagree here. This is where I would quote the principles of two other language.

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?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30673710

sigh I can't help it...

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.

> I have not had any luck to pull all the right nuget dependencies to do that so far.

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...

You can set the ports via the kestrel options: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/se...