I've always put my connection strings in the web.config, but I've just
recently seen an example of a connection string in a resource file.
What are the advantages of doing this, and could you do it for other
stuff that you would normally put in your web.config?



*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

On May 3, 8:00 am, Mike P <mike.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always put my connection strings in the web.config, but I've just
> recently seen an example of a connection string in a resource file.
> What are the advantages of doing this, and could you do it for other
> stuff that you would normally put in your web.config?

There's not advantage, infact its a disadvantage. The connection
string is one of those things you'd like to be able to change without
recompiling the code. Put your string in a resource file, and you've
lost this ability. You also lose the ability to use connection string
encyption (if you're on .net 2).

Resource files are most useful for static strings (which an end user
may see), so that you don't have to hardcode them into code,
especially if you are going to localize your application. If you're
localizing, you simply create another resx file for the culture you're
targeting and translate all the strings there and you're done.

"Mike P" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> I've always put my connection strings in the web.config,

Me too...

> but I've just recently seen an example of a connection string in a
> resource
> file. What are the advantages of doing this,

None that spring readily to mind...


> and could you do it for other stuff that you would normally put in your
> web.config?

Sure - why not...?


--
http://www.markrae.net