Problem in creating .udl file for my provider



Hi all,

I am writting an OLE DB provider for our database. I have implemented a few
interfaces, not all. I have implemented dataSource and a few interfaces for
session and other required APIs, e.g. DllRegiester() and stuffs. In short my
provider can just connect to the data source. With this much implementation
of provider I tried to create a data link file(.udl ) for my provider. The
Data Link Properties editor lists an entry for my provider. But when I click
on the next tab, i.e. connection tab, it gives me an error saying "Provider
is no longer available. Ensure that the Provider is installed properly."

What could be the reason? I think there is some mistake in generating
registry entries for my provider or could be something else.

Rather I am interested in knowing -- How "Data Link Properties" works while
creating .udl files? What it expects in the registry and in the provider
itself etc?

Thanks,
Vivek.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differences between OleDB and IBM.Data DB2 connection
    ... one should avoid using OSFA interfaces like ... These add extra layers of interfaces and providers that have to ... translate from the generic interface to the specific provider interface and ... regarding connections to a DB2 database using the OleDB provider < ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: SqlConnection vs IDbConnection
    ... IDbConnection, IDbCommand, and the like are just ... implementations (like SqlConnection, SqlDataReader, SqlCommand, etc, etc). ... for you with the underlying provider. ... programmer suggested I use the IDbConnection, IDbCommand interfaces ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: SqlConnection vs IDbConnection
    ... IDbConnection, IDbCommand, and the like are just ... implementations (like SqlConnection, SqlDataReader, SqlCommand, etc, etc). ... for you with the underlying provider. ... programmer suggested I use the IDbConnection, IDbCommand interfaces ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: CFT: new trunk(4)
    ... 100M interfaces. ... provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly ... switch needs to understand trunking but FreeBSD doesn't. ... physical links rather than dynamically sharing traffic across the ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: CFT: new trunk(4)
    ... 100M interfaces. ... provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly ... it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan ... switch needs to understand trunking but FreeBSD doesn't. ...
    (freebsd-current)

Loading