|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Why force a connection string scope to be application?Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting support of type connection string to be of application scope. Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets separate because they are essentially two different companies. Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string support is application scope and application scope settings are readonly. Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason why i should have too? Its stupid. Steve > Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason I can tell you several:> why i should have too? Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They would be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to afford to buy them. When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because I learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own if I need to (and often do). I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that you will succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your mother and father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you will be long gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that eventuality than today. -- Show quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist I recycle. I send everything back to the planet it came from. "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Hello, > > Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application > settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support > mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. > What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting > support of type connection string to be of application scope. > > Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. > Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. > > I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar > products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets > separate because they are essentially two different companies. > Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end > licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between > databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. > > It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than leveraging > VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string support is > application scope and application scope settings are readonly. > Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason > why i should have too? > > Its stupid. > > Steve > Kevin,
I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the best bet is too pretty much ignore it. If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. Steve Show quote "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason >> why i should have too? > > I can tell you several: > > Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual Studio > does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of your own > code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because computers aren't > intelligent enough to do everything you can do and force you out of a job. > Because if Microsoft made tools that did everything you and everyone else > seem to want them to, (1) They would be much too complicated to use, and > (2) You wouldn't be able to afford to buy them. > > When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. As > time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start > making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available > evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because I > learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never complain > when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own if I need > to (and often do). > > I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all said > and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or you > don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether you > produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any excuses, > like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't do what I > want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad Alchemist, making > Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to accept the fact that > what you do will be the only reason that you will succeed or fail. By the > time you reach retirement age your mother and father, and anyone else who > can provide a parachute for you will be long gone. There's no better time > to start preparing for that eventuality than today. > > -- > HTH, > > Kevin Spencer > Microsoft MVP > Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist > > I recycle. > I send everything back to the planet it came from. > > "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message > news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Hello, >> >> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application >> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support >> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting >> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >> >> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. >> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. >> >> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar >> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets >> separate because they are essentially two different companies. >> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end >> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between >> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >> >> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than leveraging >> VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string support is >> application scope and application scope settings are readonly. >> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason >> why i should have too? >> >> Its stupid. >> >> Steve >> > > How seriously are we supposed to take your question? What is it that you
are complaining about anyway? What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be application scoped read-only? The way I use connection strings there is no such limitations, they are just strings like any other strings. I can create a connection string dynamically if I want to, and the scope could be local to the method that connects to the database. Steven Bolard wrote: Show quote > Kevin, > > I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the best > bet is too pretty much ignore it. > > If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are > forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. > > Steve > > > "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message > news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason >>> why i should have too? >> I can tell you several: >> >> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual Studio >> does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of your own >> code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because computers aren't >> intelligent enough to do everything you can do and force you out of a job. >> Because if Microsoft made tools that did everything you and everyone else >> seem to want them to, (1) They would be much too complicated to use, and >> (2) You wouldn't be able to afford to buy them. >> >> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. As >> time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start >> making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available >> evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because I >> learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never complain >> when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own if I need >> to (and often do). >> >> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all said >> and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or you >> don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether you >> produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any excuses, >> like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't do what I >> want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad Alchemist, making >> Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to accept the fact that >> what you do will be the only reason that you will succeed or fail. By the >> time you reach retirement age your mother and father, and anyone else who >> can provide a parachute for you will be long gone. There's no better time >> to start preparing for that eventuality than today. >> >> -- >> HTH, >> >> Kevin Spencer >> Microsoft MVP >> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist >> >> I recycle. >> I send everything back to the planet it came from. >> >> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message >> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Hello, >>> >>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application >>> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support >>> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting >>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >>> >>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. >>> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. >>> >>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar >>> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets >>> separate because they are essentially two different companies. >>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end >>> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between >>> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >>> >>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than leveraging >>> VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string support is >>> application scope and application scope settings are readonly. >>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good reason >>> why i should have too? >>> >>> Its stupid. >>> >>> Steve >>> >> > > > What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be Visual Studio 2005.> application scoped read-only? The way I use connection strings there is > no such limitations, they are just strings like any other strings. Im not interested in the way "you" use connection strings. I already have a working implementation that does the job probably using pretty much the same logic as yourself. Please if you're unable to provide an answer to that question then dont respond. With respect to this thread Im not interested in the programmatic preachings of someone who either has way to much time on his hands or was attempting to lay out some long winded satire that didn't quite translate. Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms to achieve the outcome. As stated i already have one. I "am" interested in why Microsoft has made connection strings in the VS 2005 > My Project > Settings designer of type application scope, not just by default but by force. I can see no good technical reason for this other than someones personal preference. In which case to me it seems stupid to narrow the options without good reason.... not that it would be the first time. On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already know then perhaps i can learn something new. To make an analogy. Someone has surrounded his pool with a fence. Im not interested in the different types of fence that could be built. Im not interested in the philosophies and life practices of a fence builder. I want to know why the gate in the fence is so exclusionary. In other words WHY AREN'T FAT PEOPLE ALLOWED THROUGH THE GATE TO SWIM? ;-) Steve Show quote > create a connection string dynamically if I want to, and the scope could > be local to the method that connects to the database. > > > Steven Bolard wrote: >> Kevin, >> >> I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the best >> bet is too pretty much ignore it. >> >> If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are >> forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. >> >> Steve >> >> >> "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message >> news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>> reason why i should have too? >>> I can tell you several: >>> >>> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual >>> Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of >>> your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because >>> computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and >>> force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did >>> everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They would >>> be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to afford >>> to buy them. >>> >>> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. >>> As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start >>> making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available >>> evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because >>> I learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never >>> complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own >>> if I need to (and often do). >>> >>> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all >>> said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or >>> you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether >>> you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any >>> excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't >>> do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad >>> Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to >>> accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that you will >>> succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your mother and >>> father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you will be long >>> gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that eventuality >>> than today. >>> >>> -- >>> HTH, >>> >>> Kevin Spencer >>> Microsoft MVP >>> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist >>> >>> I recycle. >>> I send everything back to the planet it came from. >>> >>> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message >>> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application >>>> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support >>>> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >>>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting >>>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >>>> >>>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. >>>> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. >>>> >>>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar >>>> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets >>>> separate because they are essentially two different companies. >>>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end >>>> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between >>>> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >>>> >>>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than >>>> leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string >>>> support is application scope and application scope settings are >>>> readonly. >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>> reason why i should have too? >>>> >>>> Its stupid. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>> >> Working pretty hard to maintain your idiot accreditation aren't you, Steve?
Kevin gave you a fairly concise explanation. >> I already have a working implementation that does the job But, apparently it's not working the way you want it to.>> Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms .... As stated i already And you don't seem to be satisfied with it. So what would the alternativehave one. be, other than an alternative? >> On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already Sorry, but that would certainly be a long term endeavor.know >> then perhaps i can learn something new Judging by your responses to the two people who tried to answer yourquestion, I have little faith in your ability to learn something new. Or anything old, either. As long as you are willing to only program via pushbutton, the odds are high that the resulting code will not meet your specific requirements. Step away from the mouse, Steve, and discover the joys of actually thinking. Bob Lehmann Show quote "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message news:eNqWjFylGHA.1740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > > What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be > > application scoped read-only? > > Visual Studio 2005. > > The way I use connection strings there is > > no such limitations, they are just strings like any other strings. > > Im not interested in the way "you" use connection strings. I already have a > working implementation that does the job probably using pretty much the > same logic as yourself. > > Please if you're unable to provide an answer to that question then dont > respond. With respect to this thread Im not interested in the programmatic > preachings of someone who either has way to much time on his hands or was > attempting to lay out some long winded satire that didn't quite translate. > > Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms to achieve the outcome. As > stated i already have one. > > I "am" interested in why Microsoft has made connection strings in the VS > 2005 > My Project > Settings designer of type application scope, > not just by default but by force. I can see no good technical reason for > this other than someones personal preference. > In which case to me it seems stupid to narrow the options without good > reason.... not that it would be the first time. > > On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already know > then perhaps i can learn something new. > > To make an analogy. Someone has surrounded his pool with a fence. Im not > interested in the different types of fence that could be built. > Im not interested in the philosophies and life practices of a fence builder. > I want to know why the gate in the fence is so exclusionary. > In other words WHY AREN'T FAT PEOPLE ALLOWED THROUGH THE GATE TO SWIM? > > ;-) > > Steve > > > create a connection string dynamically if I want to, and the scope could > > be local to the method that connects to the database. > > > > > > Steven Bolard wrote: > >> Kevin, > >> > >> I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the best > >> bet is too pretty much ignore it. > >> > >> If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are > >> forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message > >> news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good > >>>> reason why i should have too? > >>> I can tell you several: > >>> > >>> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual > >>> Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of > >>> your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because > >>> computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and > >>> force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did > >>> everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They would > >>> be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to afford > >>> to buy them. > >>> > >>> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. > >>> As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start > >>> making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available > >>> evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because > >>> I learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never > >>> complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own > >>> if I need to (and often do). > >>> > >>> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all > >>> said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or > >>> you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether > >>> you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any > >>> excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't > >>> do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad > >>> Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to > >>> accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that you will > >>> succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your mother and > >>> father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you will be long > >>> gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that eventuality > >>> than today. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> HTH, > >>> > >>> Kevin Spencer > >>> Microsoft MVP > >>> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist > >>> > >>> I recycle. > >>> I send everything back to the planet it came from. > >>> > >>> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message > >>> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application > >>>> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support > >>>> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. > >>>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting > >>>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. > >>>> > >>>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. > >>>> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. > >>>> > >>>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar > >>>> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets > >>>> separate because they are essentially two different companies. > >>>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end > >>>> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between > >>>> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. > >>>> > >>>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than > >>>> leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string > >>>> support is application scope and application scope settings are > >>>> readonly. > >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good > >>>> reason why i should have too? > >>>> > >>>> Its stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>> > >> > > Working pretty hard to maintain your idiot accreditation aren't you, Insults are not neccessary.> Steve? > Kevin gave you a fairly concise explanation. No he didn't. He gave me what seems a very arrogant and long winded response that didn't answer the question at all. The subject of this thread is: Why force a connection string scope to be application? He took a single line "why should I have too", twisted it and tried to turn that into the subject of thread. I didn't ask "what do i do now that connection strings are scoped at the application level." I didn't say Microsoft were stupid nor useless because their products dont do everything for me. Thats your twisted rewrite of what i asked. I said it was stupid, given there appears to be no sound technical explaination to arbitrarily force scope to application type. Now if thats all it is.... an oversight, an error then fine. I already have an implentation that works that will continue to use. But if there is some sound technical reasoning behind what they have done then please enlighten me. >>> I already have a working implementation that does the job Bob i dunno about you but Im always looking for a better way to do > > But, apparently it's not working the way you want it to. everything. >>> Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms .... As stated i already O.k Bob let me spell it out for you since your obviously trying very hard > have one. > > And you don't seem to be satisfied with it. So what would the alternative > be, other than an alternative? not to understand. I have a working alternative to Microsofts implementation of Application/configuration settings. As part of an ongoing effort to improve my ability to maintain the code I have in play and therefore better service my customers, I am always on the lookout for new and improved methods and means of gettings things done. One of the things I have been looking at is how application/configuration settings can be managed using .net 2.0 and VS 2005. So as per my previous post when i ask "Why force a connection string to be scope to be application?", I dont want to hear everything but the answer to my question. In other words when i ask how do i make the color red, Im not interested in an answer that says "Well i dunno but heres how I make the color blue?". You clearly cannot answer the question and so instead you have a crack at me for asking it. >>> On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already With a tutor such as yourself perhaps but im hoping to connect with someone > know > > Sorry, but that would certainly be a long term endeavor. who can actually has answers. > Judging by your responses to the two people who tried to answer your Bob can you point out to me the specific line/s in either Kevin or Gorans > question, I have little faith in your ability to learn something new. Or > anything old, either. response that as you put it "tried to answer my question". Kevin gave me his personal philosophy on programmatic independance and Goran started out by telling me that he didn't even understand the question and then went on to discuss how he handles his connection strings, which unsurprisingly is not the question i asked. > As long as you are willing to only program via pushbutton, the odds are Who are you responding too? Where did i say that I am only willing to > high > that the resulting code will not meet your specific requirements. program via puishbutton and that Microsoft should do everything for me? How do you get from a specific question about a specific issue to this insane idea that I am anti code editor. Your inability to contextualise the question into anything other than extreme and somewhat hyperactive exaggeration is astounding. Do you also believe all muslims are terrorists because Osama is? Try to keep a perspective Bob or simply dont reply. Step away > from the mouse, Steve, and discover the joys of actually thinking. Bob I am "actually thinking". Thats the whole point. Your point on the other hand seems to be "discover the joys of actually thinking" but for gods sake dont ask any questions. Im thinking "why does Microsoft force us to scope a connection string at application level when it could actually just as easily be scoped as user type". Im thinking o.k if need be i can easily craft my own work around (which i have) but why should i have too when Microsoft are clearly.... "heres a better way"? And what pitfuls am I not seeing that a company with 1000's of employees can see. Why have they done that that way? Why shouldn't I do it the way Im currently doing it? Because if there was nothing wrong with the way I am currently doing it why wouldn't that already be supported in a tool specifically created to handle this particular problem? Instead why is it specifically and deliberately forced to application scope? Is it an oversight? Is it an architectural issue at my end? What dont i know? Thats what Im thinking Bob. Perhaps someone, such as yourself, who clearly claims to have a more learned mind than my own can fill in the blanks for me? Rather than going off your own tangential agenda about how you despise wizard based programmers that is? Which is really interesting becuase when i ask a question about whats going on behind the wizard, whats the rational, all the self described anti wizard police can respond with is "Dont use them"...... which sounds alot to me like you dont actually have a clue either.... despite all your grandstanding. So can you answer the question or not? Steve Lehmann Show quote > > "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message > news:eNqWjFylGHA.1740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >> >> > What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be >> > application scoped read-only? >> >> Visual Studio 2005. >> >> The way I use connection strings there is >> > no such limitations, they are just strings like any other strings. >> >> Im not interested in the way "you" use connection strings. I already have > a >> working implementation that does the job probably using pretty much the >> same logic as yourself. >> >> Please if you're unable to provide an answer to that question then dont >> respond. With respect to this thread Im not interested in the >> programmatic >> preachings of someone who either has way to much time on his hands or was >> attempting to lay out some long winded satire that didn't quite >> translate. >> >> Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms to achieve the outcome. As >> stated i already have one. >> >> I "am" interested in why Microsoft has made connection strings in the VS >> 2005 > My Project > Settings designer of type application scope, >> not just by default but by force. I can see no good technical reason for >> this other than someones personal preference. >> In which case to me it seems stupid to narrow the options without good >> reason.... not that it would be the first time. >> >> On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already > know >> then perhaps i can learn something new. >> >> To make an analogy. Someone has surrounded his pool with a fence. Im not >> interested in the different types of fence that could be built. >> Im not interested in the philosophies and life practices of a fence > builder. >> I want to know why the gate in the fence is so exclusionary. >> In other words WHY AREN'T FAT PEOPLE ALLOWED THROUGH THE GATE TO SWIM? >> >> ;-) >> >> Steve >> >> > create a connection string dynamically if I want to, and the scope >> > could >> > be local to the method that connects to the database. >> > >> > >> > Steven Bolard wrote: >> >> Kevin, >> >> >> >> I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the > best >> >> bet is too pretty much ignore it. >> >> >> >> If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are >> >> forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message >> >> news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >> >>>> reason why i should have too? >> >>> I can tell you several: >> >>> >> >>> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual >> >>> Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any >> >>> of >> >>> your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because >> >>> computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and >> >>> force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did >> >>> everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They >> >>> would >> >>> be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to >> >>> afford >> >>> to buy them. >> >>> >> >>> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line > compiler. >> >>> As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could > start >> >>> making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are > available >> >>> evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, > because >> >>> I learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never >> >>> complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my > own >> >>> if I need to (and often do). >> >>> >> >>> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all >> >>> said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce > or >> >>> you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of > whether >> >>> you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any >> >>> excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that >> >>> doesn't >> >>> do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad >> >>> Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to >> >>> accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that you >> >>> will >> >>> succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your mother and >> >>> father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you will be > long >> >>> gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that eventuality >> >>> than today. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> HTH, >> >>> >> >>> Kevin Spencer >> >>> Microsoft MVP >> >>> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist >> >>> >> >>> I recycle. >> >>> I send everything back to the planet it came from. >> >>> >> >>> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >>>> Hello, >> >>>> >> >>>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for > application >> >>>> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated > support >> >>>> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >> >>>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application >> >>>> setting >> >>>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >> >>>> >> >>>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i > need. >> >>>> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. >> >>>> >> >>>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of > similiar >> >>>> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets >> >>>> separate because they are essentially two different companies. >> >>>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back > end >> >>>> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between >> >>>> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >> >>>> >> >>>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than >> >>>> leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string >> >>>> support is application scope and application scope settings are >> >>>> readonly. >> >>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >> >>>> reason why i should have too? >> >>>> >> >>>> Its stupid. >> >>>> >> >>>> Steve >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > Steven Bolard wrote:
>> What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be Funny, that's what I'm using too. There is absolutely nothing in Visual >> application scoped read-only? > > Visual Studio 2005. Studio that forces connection strings to be application scoped and read-only. > The way I use connection strings there is I'm interrested in the way you are using the connection strings. That's >> no such limitations, they are just strings like any other strings. > > Im not interested in the way "you" use connection strings. I already have a > working implementation that does the job probably using pretty much the > same logic as yourself. why I asked. But if you don't want to clarify that, how could anyone possibly help you? > Please if you're unable to provide an answer to that question then dont I am trying to get the information from you that is needed to answser > respond. With respect to this thread Im not interested in the programmatic > preachings of someone who either has way to much time on his hands or was > attempting to lay out some long winded satire that didn't quite translate. the question. The alternative would just be: "Impossible to answer question. Too little information provided." > Nor am I interested in alternative mechanisms to achieve the outcome. As If you put something in the settings for the application, it will of > stated i already have one. > > I "am" interested in why Microsoft has made connection strings in the VS > 2005 > My Project > Settings designer of type application scope, > not just by default but by force. I can see no good technical reason for > this other than someones personal preference. > In which case to me it seems stupid to narrow the options without good > reason.... not that it would be the first time. course have application scope. I don't see how this could come as a surprise to you. Put the connection strings elsewhere and you can have a different scope. > On the other hand if someone can enlighten me with what I dont already know In this case the gate is exactly as wide as the pool. If you can't get > then perhaps i can learn something new. > > To make an analogy. Someone has surrounded his pool with a fence. Im not > interested in the different types of fence that could be built. > Im not interested in the philosophies and life practices of a fence builder. > I want to know why the gate in the fence is so exclusionary. > In other words WHY AREN'T FAT PEOPLE ALLOWED THROUGH THE GATE TO SWIM? through the gate, you can't get in the pool. There are hundreds of other pools that you can use instead. I just pictured the wheelchair guy in "Little Brittain", insisting on using this particluar pool, and when they rebuilt it so that it's possible, he says: "I can't swim". Show quote > ;-) > > Steve > >> create a connection string dynamically if I want to, and the scope could >> be local to the method that connects to the database. >> >> >> Steven Bolard wrote: >>> Kevin, >>> >>> I dunno how seriously im supposed to take your answer so i guess the best >>> bet is too pretty much ignore it. >>> >>> If anyone else knows a "technical" reason why connection strings are >>> forced-scoped as application read-only types please advise. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message >>> news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>>> reason why i should have too? >>>> I can tell you several: >>>> >>>> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual >>>> Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of >>>> your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because >>>> computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and >>>> force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did >>>> everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They would >>>> be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to afford >>>> to buy them. >>>> >>>> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line compiler. >>>> As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I could start >>>> making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that are available >>>> evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those times, because >>>> I learned a lot about how computers and software work. And I never >>>> complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned well build my own >>>> if I need to (and often do). >>>> >>>> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all >>>> said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce or >>>> you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of whether >>>> you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to accept any >>>> excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software that doesn't >>>> do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken Salad >>>> Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you have to >>>> accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that you will >>>> succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your mother and >>>> father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you will be long >>>> gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that eventuality >>>> than today. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> HTH, >>>> >>>> Kevin Spencer >>>> Microsoft MVP >>>> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist >>>> >>>> I recycle. >>>> I send everything back to the planet it came from. >>>> >>>> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message >>>> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for application >>>>> settings and the changes to system.configuration and associated support >>>>> mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >>>>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting >>>>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >>>>> >>>>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i need. >>>>> Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one. >>>>> >>>>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of similiar >>>>> products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the datasets >>>>> separate because they are essentially two different companies. >>>>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back end >>>>> licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch between >>>>> databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >>>>> >>>>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than >>>>> leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string >>>>> support is application scope and application scope settings are >>>>> readonly. >>>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>>> reason why i should have too? >>>>> >>>>> Its stupid. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> > "Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.com> wrote in message Great then please tell me me how when using My Project > Settings designer, news:uwkNA%231lGHA.1552@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Steven Bolard wrote: >>> What is it that you are using that forces connection strings to be >>> application scoped read-only? >> >> Visual Studio 2005. > > Funny, that's what I'm using too. There is absolutely nothing in Visual > Studio that forces connection strings to be application scoped and > read-only. I can create an application setting of type connection string that is not forced-scoped to application. > This is incorrect. They can also be scoped to user type using precisely the > If you put something in the settings for the application, it will of > course have application scope. I don't see how this could come as a > surprise to you. same tool. >Put the connection strings elsewhere and you can have a different scope. In other words dont use the tool provided for configuration settings? It still doesn't answer the question of the thread. Why do i have too? What is Microsofts reasoning and logic behind this? I dont know how else to say it? I already do it another way. I want to know why Microsoft does it the way they do it. I thought it would be a very simple question if not to answer then at least understand. Take me and my code right out of the equation altogether and let me repeat. Why force a connection string to be scoped application? Is there anything for me to learn here or is it just like that for no particular reason at all. There is not neccessarily a sound answer to this question, Microsoft are not immune to doing stupid or unneccessarily restricitve things. However after reading a handful of articles on MSDN about the new 2.0 features etc, about the powerful VS2005 support for the configuration settings, ease of use etc etc, it was a little disappointing to hit a snag on the first use of tool. Especially on something so basic. > In this case the gate is exactly as wide as the pool. If you can't get Thanks. This was understood before my first post. I just wanted to know why > through the gate, you can't get in the pool. There are hundreds of other > pools that you can use instead. the gate is exactly and only as wide as the pool. > I just pictured the wheelchair guy in "Little Brittain", insisting on Yes i've seen that episode. Perhaps the answer to my question can be drawn > using this particluar pool, and when they rebuilt it so that it's > possible, he says: > > "I can't swim". from a certain helpful travel agent Why not? Because "computer says no!" Steve Show quote >>>> "Kevin Spencer" <u**@ftc.gov> wrote in message >>>> news:OtFN59UlGHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>>>> reason why i should have too? >>>>> I can tell you several: >>>>> >>>>> Because you want something slightly out of the scope of what Visual >>>>> Studio does for you. For the same reason that you have to write any of >>>>> your own code at all. Because tools are just that: tools. Because >>>>> computers aren't intelligent enough to do everything you can do and >>>>> force you out of a job. Because if Microsoft made tools that did >>>>> everything you and everyone else seem to want them to, (1) They would >>>>> be much too complicated to use, and (2) You wouldn't be able to afford >>>>> to buy them. >>>>> >>>>> When I started programming I used DOS Edit and a command-line >>>>> compiler. As time went by and my skills improved to the point where I >>>>> could start making money from my work, I upgraded, and the tools that >>>>> are available evolved. But I'm grateful that I had to go through those >>>>> times, because I learned a lot about how computers and software work. >>>>> And I never complain when I don't have a tool because I can darned >>>>> well build my own if I need to (and often do). >>>>> >>>>> I don't expect anything from anyone except myself. And when it's all >>>>> said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You either produce >>>>> or you don't. And your client isn't going to pay you regardless of >>>>> whether you produce or not. Your client (or boss) isn't going to >>>>> accept any excuses, like "It's Microsoft's fault for making software >>>>> that doesn't do what I want it to." You have to learn to be a Chicken >>>>> Salad Alchemist, making Chicken Salad out of Chicken s**t. And you >>>>> have to accept the fact that what you do will be the only reason that >>>>> you will succeed or fail. By the time you reach retirement age your >>>>> mother and father, and anyone else who can provide a parachute for you >>>>> will be long gone. There's no better time to start preparing for that >>>>> eventuality than today. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> HTH, >>>>> >>>>> Kevin Spencer >>>>> Microsoft MVP >>>>> Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist >>>>> >>>>> I recycle. >>>>> I send everything back to the planet it came from. >>>>> >>>>> "Steven Bolard" <st***@nfredf.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:uPhoSDSlGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> Im using VS2005. Microsoft have got some great support for >>>>>> application settings and the changes to system.configuration and >>>>>> associated support mechansims seems to be pretty damn good. >>>>>> What i dont get is why they stupidly force all VS application setting >>>>>> support of type connection string to be of application scope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Im the developer. I'll choose thank you very much. I know what i >>>>>> need. Microsoft have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this >>>>>> one. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have an application specifically designed for distributor of >>>>>> similiar products for different brands. Customer wants to keep the >>>>>> datasets separate because they are essentially two different >>>>>> companies. >>>>>> Customer doesn't need to buy two front end licenses, just two back >>>>>> end licenses to achieve this. Customer want therefore to switch >>>>>> between databases and therefore want to switch connection strings. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems Microsoft force me to keep using my code rather than >>>>>> leveraging VS to "do this for me". Why because connection string >>>>>> support is application scope and application scope settings are >>>>>> readonly. >>>>>> Sure i can edit VS generated code but can anyone tell me one good >>>>>> reason why i should have too? >>>>>> >>>>>> Its stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics