when to use sqladapter and when to use ado.net

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I am new to vb.net coming from vb6 (intermediate level)

1. I am trying to wrap my mind around when I would use ADO.Net and when to
use sqladapter.


2.can I use sqldataadapter in web app?



3. Is it necessay to create a class for a record, like a cutomers class?
 
1. The SqlDataAdapter is part of the concept known as ADO.NET. So your
questions doesn't make sense.

2. Yes. You can use any non-UI class in any .NET application.

3. Not it isn't.

By your questions, I recommend you pick up a book on .NET, one that has a
lot of focus on ADO.NET.
 
Because in order to be an instructor you don't need to know squirrel
droppings about what you are teaching! I just hope it's at ITT!

As ratbert said : "A good instructor doesn't have to be a subject
matter expert"
 
At least he can understand the struggles of a newbie.

That's often better then some know-it-all who can't understand what a
beginner struggles through.
 
Newbee,

To understand your question in the web, you need to know what means shared
in VBNet in a web application.

A general answer on your first two questions.

- In a application where it is needed to update the data, a dataadapter.
- In an application where the data needs not to be update however the
data is consistent for longer than a day, a dataadapter and a shared class.
- In an application where it is only needed to show frequently changed
data, the datareader.

A personal answer on your third question.

The creation of a class in a webapplication for a data belonging to the form
has seldom sense. A webform is not persistent, therefore the object will be
destroyed as soon as the page is sent to the client.

Using a dataset (which is a very OOP implemented class, as well in the typed
as non typed way of use), can help you very much as there are updates
involved.

I hope this helps,

Cor
 
Robbe,

If there is good course documentation, than knowledge of the teaching
subject should not (always) be necessary. A Chinese with low knowledge of
the English language and good course documentation, can in general better
teach English to a Chinese, than a high in the English language educated
person from English Oxford who does not know Chinese. On the other hand, if
somebody knows already English, than is the last in my opinion preferable.

However when the teaching Chinese knows nothing from English and has not
even has good course documentation (what it seems to be now), than I agree
with your sentence.

Just my thought,

Cor
 
Andrew said:
Because in order to be an instructor you don't need to know squirrel
droppings about what you are teaching! I just hope it's at ITT!

As ratbert said : "A good instructor doesn't have to be a subject
matter expert"
Click to expand...

Guess I'll go teach brain surgery then, I know diddly squat about that.
iow I dissagree with your point and ratbert (whoever that is), is an idiot.

A good teacher
a) knows the subject matter very well AND
b) is able to convey his knowledge in an understandable way.

If either of these 2 points are missing then the teacher is no good.
I've had s few of teachers where point a) was fine, but lacked in b) and
one teacher where it was the other way around. Suffice it to say those
teachers failed poorly in their jobs.
 
Rinze,

My mother and father have taught me to walk. They both don't actual know why
it is that people can walk on only two feet, while other animals have to do
that on four.

There are kits with failures, those learn from specialized teachers.

However, according to your message am I an Idiot.

:-)

Cor
 
Back
Top