« Previous Next »

• 01-21-2009, 11:53 AM

  adambrazier Joined on 01-20-2009, 4:46 PM Posts 4

  Configuring multiple ftp sites in the root web.config for membership authentication Reply Contact Similar to the post here, to which I added a question in this direction, but I want to be more specific. In the walk-through for setting up ftp with membership authentication, we are told to make an addition to the root web.config in order to enable ASP.NET for ftp; basically we declare membership and role providers and connection strings inside a location element with the mysterious path="GlobalFtpSite/ftpsvc" attribute. So, my question is this: how do I do this for different ftp sites? I have to set up some ftp sites running for different applications and with authentication stores sometimes on different databases, so I need to be able to produce different membership providers for them. However, it seems that putting this stuff in the web.config of the application itself is just ignored in favour of the root web.config specification and I don't understand how I can perhaps identify them specifically in the  root web.config (rather than addressing them all with GlobalFtpSite/ftpsvc location path, which with the set up I have been given would limit me to one ftp site...). In essence, it seems to be that there's only one provider and connection string allowed, which between then specify the application (in the standard aspnet security/authentication database) and also the database in which the information is stored. Basically I want to be able to specify, per ftp site, application and database (as I can for ASP.NET sites). Is that possible?   If it's not possible, I am somewhat mystified as to why IIS7 contains both the ability to run multiple ftp sites and also to use ASP.NET membership authentication for ftp and doesn't allow the combination of the two...   Essentially, then, to what does the "GlobalFtpSite/ftpsvc" path refer or, more particularly, how do I achieve a more fine-grained specification?

• 01-22-2009, 4:27 PM

  In reply to

  adambrazier Joined on 01-20-2009, 4:46 PM Posts 4

  Re: Configuring multiple ftp sites in the root web.config for membership authentication Reply Contact  This is driving me nuts. Is there any documentation anywhere as to what GlobalFtpSite is and how I can specifically configure individual ftp sites? As it stands, what I do or don't write in web.config or applicationHost.config regarding the sites is just ignored (although it shows up in the configuration editor in IIS Manager). Am I one of only two people that's trying to do this (doesn't seem likely...), have I forgotten to flick some switch, what?

• 01-22-2009, 5:41 PM

  In reply to

  JaroDunajsky Joined on 04-19-2005, 10:23 PM Redmond Posts 168

  Re: Configuring multiple ftp sites in the root web.config for membership authentication Reply Contact What you see is a known design limitation. If FTP sites could use unique Asp.net membership instrance per site, then each of them would need a unique appdomain. (membership providers are singletons within appdomains). That would make hosting scenarios with many websites (and a unique FTP site per site) hard to manage. We are looking into options how we could allow more than one instance for the next release, but I cannot promise anything at this point. Jaroslav Dunajsky (MSFT, IIS)

• 01-22-2009, 10:38 PM

  In reply to

  adambrazier Joined on 01-20-2009, 4:46 PM Posts 4

  Re: Configuring multiple ftp sites in the root web.config for membership authentication Reply Contact  Ack. Well, thanks for the reply. In this case, I'm not trying to apply ftp to existing websites but trying just to make multiple ftp-only sites but I guess so far as you're concerned, it's the same thing. I can do this with Geneftp I think (using user databases I create myself), but I wanted to use the ASP.NET membership authentication (which is sweet) but, alas, each ftp site has a different set of users in either different databases or else with different applications, so I'd need different membership provider instances. Again, thanks for the reply; it's not what I wanted to hear, of course, but it's saved me a bunch of continuing exasperation. I guess that the current situation is OK for some/many people, just not much use to me. Obviously, I'll be stoked if you guys can find a way to make this work (as an option, maybe?) or there's some other way to avoid the problem without lumping together all my users...