What is the least impactful way (to the end user) to deploy ac#/database application?

[sherifffruitfly]

Hi all,

I'm making an app that reads some text files on the user's computer,
puts them into a little database, and then least the user view/search
thru them. I've just realized that the sqlexpress db I created thru
server explorer is only gonna be on my dev box, and not the user's
(heh). So I need to write code that'll create a similar db on the
user's computer.

From the end user's standpoint, what's the easiest way to do this? As
much as possible, I'd like this to be completely transparent to the
user.

Thanks for any ideas!

 

[AdamH]

How about xml as teh storage and xpath as the lookup.

or

how about not creating the database but just the structures. then on the
client machine you can treat everything as a disconnected tables etc and use
the builtin ado stuff for storage and lookup?

 

[sherifffruitfly]

How about xml as teh storage and xpath as the lookup.

or

how about not creating the database but just the structures. then on the
client machine you can treat everything as a disconnected tables etc and use
the builtin ado stuff for storage and lookup?

Nah. There are a lot of fields, and at least 100s of 1000s of records
(and growing).

I was really looking for ideas on how to do what I said, not ideas on
how to do something else; but thanks nevertheless.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Oh - wasn't even aware of sql compact - interesting.

Sounds very like the sort of thing I was looking for - thanks!

I assume that with sqlcompact, I would have the advantage of tools
integration (visual studio, etc.) over Firebird? What advantages does
Firebird have over sql compact?

I am sure that both SQLServer Compact and FireBird embedded has
their strength and weaknesses.

I don't know them well enough to comment.

The only thing I can think of that FireBird can that Compact
can not is running on Linux with Mono.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm making an app that reads some text files on the user's computer,
puts them into a little database, and then least the user view/search
thru them. I've just realized that the sqlexpress db I created thru
server explorer is only gonna be on my dev box, and not the user's
(heh). So I need to write code that'll create a similar db on the
user's computer.

From the end user's standpoint, what's the easiest way to do this? As
much as possible, I'd like this to be completely transparent to the
user.

I think you should go for an embedded database. SQLServer Compact,
Firebird or something similar.

Arne

 

[sherifffruitfly]

I think you should go for an embedded database. SQLServer Compact,
Firebird or something similar.

Arne

Oh - wasn't even aware of sql compact - interesting. From the product
description:

"Desktop Deployment Options
Administrators can roll out SQL Server Compact Edition with a standard
Microsoft Installer package (MSI) with minimal effect on their users.
Using an MSI, SQL Server Compact Edition is installed in a standard
location, allowing servicing by Microsoft Update, Windows Server
Update Services, or Microsoft Systems Management Server.
Developers and ISVs can use Visual Studio 2005 to easily verify and
deploy SQL Server Compact Edition when using the ClickOnce deployment
option. Alternatively, SQL Server Compact Edition can be deployed by
copying the engine files (several DLLs totaling less than 2 MB) to the
application directory. The former option helps support scenarios where
the user does not have administrative rights on the computer."


Sounds very like the sort of thing I was looking for - thanks!

I assume that with sqlcompact, I would have the advantage of tools
integration (visual studio, etc.) over Firebird? What advantages does
Firebird have over sql compact?

Thanks again!

 

[sherifffruitfly]

I am sure that both SQLServer Compact and FireBird embedded has
their strength and weaknesses.

I don't know them well enough to comment.

The only thing I can think of that FireBird can that Compact
can not is running on Linux with Mono.

Arne

Fair enough - thanks for the ideas!

 

[Bill Woodruff]

Adam H. wrote in response to OP :

"how about not creating the database but just the structures. then on the
client machine you can treat everything as a disconnected tables etc and use
the builtin ado stuff for storage and lookup?"

Hi, this is very interesting : is there an example of this technique you
happen to know of in any CodeProject article, on-line resource ?

best, Bill

 

[RobinS]

I am sure that both SQLServer Compact and FireBird embedded has
their strength and weaknesses.

I don't know them well enough to comment.

The only thing I can think of that FireBird can that Compact
can not is running on Linux with Mono.

Arne

--Fair enough - thanks for the ideas!

Just FYI, You can freely distribute the SQLServer Compact Edition to 1-user
systems, and you don't have to install SQLServer on the client system to use
it. Bill Vaughn has written an e-book on SQLServerCE, if you google him you
will be able to track it down if you're interested.

RobinS.
GoldMail.com

 

[sherifffruitfly]

--Fair enough - thanks for the ideas!

Just FYI, You can freely distribute the SQLServer Compact Edition to 1-user
systems, and you don't have to install SQLServer on the client system to use
it.  Bill Vaughn has written an e-book on SQLServerCE, if you google himyou
will be able to track it down if you're interested.

RobinS.
GoldMail.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perfect - many thanks!

 

[sherifffruitfly]

--Fair enough - thanks for the ideas!

Just FYI, You can freely distribute the SQLServer Compact Edition to 1-user
systems, and you don't have to install SQLServer on the client system to use
it.  Bill Vaughn has written an e-book on SQLServerCE, if you google himyou
will be able to track it down if you're interested.

RobinS.
GoldMail.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

O - for actual dollars - lol!