Re: Machine Config

re:
How many users ( including myself in the past ) got confused about machine.config vs. every
framework has a machine.config for the entire machine?

heh, heh...

So far you're the only one I've encountered...but don't let that stop you.

:-)



Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"MSDN" <sql_agentman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:%233suA9FdGHA.1324@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Juan,

The name framework.config - or equivalent has lots of implicit meta data in it.
How many users ( including myself in the past ) got confused about machine.config vs. every
framework has a machine.config for the entire machine?
At times that saves time when things are precisely named.

God Bless and thank you again.

SA


"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OuxKNpFdGHA.3952@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
re:
Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks for yours.

I still think that it's a semantic thing...and that machine.config is aptly named.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"MSDN" <sql_agentman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uIeAtOFdGHA.4148@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I disagree, We are not hung up here we need better names when possible.

Why companies correct, modify things then? Why not keep everything the same?
machine.config is deceiving.
framework.config would have been better. Over the years many companies including Microsoft have
named things in a way that can be better. Thanks to Microsoft things are changing for the best
because Microsoft is listening to people like us. Good example is local.live.com, New Hotmail
Beta, etc. etc. etc..

If we get stuck in the past we never improve the future. If we don't look for improvements we
never get better.

Thanks for your thoughts.

SA


you are right machine.config is not only for web.
"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23pmfkFFdGHA.4932@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
re:
Microsoft named "machine.config" incorrectly. Microsoft should have called it
"framework.config"

Let's not get hung up on semantics here.

It *is* machine.config...for the framework version
installed in the directory where that machine.config is found.

i.e., that "machine.config" has machine-wide scope for that framework version.

Machine.config is aptly named.

It's OK to have more machine.config files in other framework installation directories.
There's no difference in naming the file "machine.config" or "framework.config".

Something else to keep in mind, in regard to the OP's question, is that some of the
configuration
parameters in machine.config refer to desktop and console apps, and don't necessarily refer to
*web* apps...so a "machine.config" file can have other purposes than configuring web apps.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"MSDN" <sql_agentman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uVVLeoEdGHA.3556@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Big misconception here.

read this carefully.
Microsoft named "machine.config" incorrectly. Microsoft should have called it
"framework.config"
machine.config is not for the entire machine but for the entire machine that is using a
specific framework
Because you can have Framework 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and xx.x all at the same time on one machine
then you can have multiple machine.config files. One for each framework.

This is a trick question on an interview.

Also machine.config "framework.config" has allot of configurations that are common and then
you can specialize your configurations in your web.config for each web application you have on
your server.

SA


"TARUN" <tarun.sinha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147266766.620377.245220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello All

I need to ask about the configuration file in .NET,
There are Two config File
1. Web Config
2. Machine config
I understand the the usage of Web config , but not able to understand
the usage of Machine config.
I read in the article that you can also write your database connection
string in Machine Config
if this is true then why the people using web config , we can write the
whole configurartion
setting in machine.

Can any explain me why .net frame work requires two configuration file
if we write the same content (config setting) in both the files ????


With regards
Tarun Sinha













.

Relevant Pages

  • A Framework to automatically configure a Kernel
    ... automatically generates a Kernel-Configuration. ... I've right-now almost finished a framework that generates a ... .config file based on the target system. ... Those scripts answers are depending on the ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Machine Config
    ... Thanks to Microsoft things are changing for the best because Microsoft is ... It *is* machine.config...for the framework version ... There are Two config File ... I understand the the usage of Web config, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Machine Config
    ... that "machine.config" has machine-wide scope for that framework version. ... There are Two config File ... I understand the the usage of Web config, ... Can any explain me why .net frame work requires two configuration file ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Machine Config
    ... including Microsoft have named things in a way that can be better. ... It *is* machine.config...for the framework version ... There are Two config File ... I understand the the usage of Web config, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Automatic Configuration of a Kernel
    ... I've almost finished a framework ... linux kernel Config without spending a lot of time at ... auto-detect if the hardware involved in this option is ... present or not (the script reply 'y' or 'n'). ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Loading