Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Most examples I see about hosting WCF in IIS have you create an Application under an existing website. I have a website in IIS, but the website uses a .NET 2.0 app pool, so I can’t host the service as an application under the website. Is it better to create an empty website to just host the service or to create an empty website and then create an application under that empty website to host the service?
I have WCF running as a WebSite in both IIS6 and IIS7, and they work fine. They basically work exactly the same as any ASP.NET site; the .svc files are conceptually similar to .aspx pages, in that IIS calls over to .NET to process them, and all the core WCF stuff is in the assemblies in \bin. The web site is assigned to an App Pool where the actual processes run, just like a normal ASP.NET site. I don’t think you need to make an ‘Application’ in IIS.