Working pretty hard to maintain your idiot accreditation aren't you,
Steve?
Insults are not neccessary.
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.
But, apparently it's not working the way you want it to.
Bob i dunno about you but Im always looking for a better way to do
everything.
have one.
And you don't seem to be satisfied with it. So what would the alternative
be, other than an alternative?
O.k Bob let me spell it out for you since your obviously trying very hard
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.
know
Sorry, but that would certainly be a long term endeavor.
With a tutor such as yourself perhaps but im hoping to connect with someone
who can actually has answers.
Judging by your responses to the two people who tried to answer your
question, I have little faith in your ability to learn something new. Or
anything old, either.
Bob can you point out to me the specific line/s in either Kevin or Gorans
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
high
that the resulting code will not meet your specific requirements.
Who are you responding too? Where did i say that I am only willing to
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
