Cor Ligthert said:
Bill,
Is it really needed to criticise Ken and/or me.
--I'm not sure how Ken is even remotely involved in this but the fact is I
didn't criticize either one of you. Since I didn't use the names "Ken" or
"Cor" in anything I wrote, I have no idea where you are coming from. If
however Cor as an MVP, you think it's appropriate to put up incorrect and
confusing examples for people that's one thing. If you think it's
appropriate to put up incorrect and confusing examples and get upset because
someone pointed out there were some flaws in them, that's another. We all
make mistakes Cor. I make them all the time. And to be honest, not only
don't I mind, but I EXPECT my fellow MVPS to point it out when I do
something wrong. And in just about every case I respond with "Thank you for
pointing that out" because i don't want to confuse people and I don't want
anyone to learn something that's wrong from me. I posted that reply to help
David and show him how to handle multiple providers which is what he was
looking for. It's unfortunate you got offended but I surely didn't insult
you or anyone else and my intent was only to help out David. And please,
stop with trying to drag Ken into everything, it's plainly obvious this has
nothing to do with him whatsoever.
I can assure you that all our samples are tested and that there is a
reason why there is not direct a connection string used.
--I didn't say the samples weren't tested. I said nothing of the sort.
Please Cor, reread my comments before making accusations and ridiculous
statements. It doesn't matter one bit if you hard code the connection
string in an example or not. But, if you're going to seriously tell me that
there's a reason why you used the ConnectionStringSettings class with a hard
coded value, I'd love to hear it. And I'd love to hear how it would have
any bearing on what the guy posted considering it's clear that he was using
a Configuration file and not hard coding the values. How Cor, would you use
a ConfigurationManager to grab a hard coded value outside of the context of
a configuration file? Technically it'd be possible but only after writing
the ConfigurationSection out first and even then it would make little sense
in the overall context. If you're going to post an example for the guy Cor,
at least take a second to understand how it works.
Taken Straight From MSDN Online:
"Represents a single, named connection string in the connectionstrings
configuration file section. " Here's the link for your reference
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library(d=robot)/system.configuration.connectionstringsettings.aspx
Notice the last four words of that sentence Cor "connectionstring
configuration file section"
Remarks
A ConnectionStringSettings object represents a single entry in the
connectionStrings configuration file section.
Notice that it DOES NOT say "connectionstring configuration file section or
hard coded string value". There's a reason for that. The reason is that
it's not the way the Class was meant to be used. Now look at the code I
posted. One example of each provider and using the ConfigurationManager to
retrieve the values. If you want to hard code connection strings, that's
fine. However using the ConnectionStringSettings to a hard coded value is
useless, and as I said, defeats the entire puprose of how it's meant to be
used. In addition, it only serves to confuse people new to this material
(and apparently even those who see fit to publish articles about it).
If you think that it is your duty to citicize other MVP's in these
newsgroups feel free.
--Where did I criticize anyone? You must be reading something other than
what I wrote. If you read my post again, I didn't use a single person's
name nor did I refer to you or anyone else directly or indirectly. The code
I referred to was incorrect to the extent that it wasn't being used
correctly. However that's not why I pointed out there was something wrong
with it. It was confusing and classes were being used that weren't necessary
and if you read the poster's question, he was using a different approach
than this in the first place. You may want to look at his code again. The
ConnectionStrings property of the ConfigurationManager points to a
configuration file section not a hard coded value. Sending this guy on a
wild goose chase serves no one's interest. And honestly Cor, everyone makes
mistakes. You shouldn't expect others to have to try to hide or conceal
that something's wrong just because you made a mistake.
<<I think that there are more elegant ways to point each >>
How was I supposed to handle it Cor? The code is right there in the post
and it's wrong, particularly wrong considering the question at hand. I
could have emailed you and David privately and pointed out what is wrong
with it and how to address it, but why? If the shoe was on the other foot,
I would have simply acknowledged you were correct and said Thank you. My
concern in this case is for the person asking the question and while I
regret that you're bothered by it, I did nothing wrong
other on failures as that is needed than a sentence as above.
--Cor, I stated a Fact. Not an opinion but a fact. I stated if
professionally and politely. I didn't criticize you or anyone else, I
pointed out what was wrong with the code. If I wanted to embarass you, I
would have. The fact is that we all make mistakes, you , me and everyone
else. I would much rather have a mistake of mine corrected then let someone
else learn bad habits from a mistake of mine. If you can't accept that,
it's unfortunate. As I pointed out, the that code was written, it defeats
the entire purpose of the class that was used. If anyone is looking at that
code for answers, I think they would much rather know how to do it properly
than learn wrong. Please reread my words "Hard coding defeats the purpose
of this approach, and even if you called Save on your configuratoinManager,
this code doesn't read from those values anyway". What is incorrect about
that Cor?
