 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / December 2005Using a different filename for App.config
Hello, By default, when you create an App.config file it gets named as MyApp.exe.config after build. I don't like this name and would rather have the file named MyApp.config, the .exe.config thing might confuse my users. Is there any way to do this, or am I stuck with MyApp.exe.config?? Thanks. Hi, > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my users. Is there any way to do this, or am I stuck with > MyApp.exe.config?? AFAIK there is no way to change it IF you want to use the framework supplied classes, of course there is nothing to prevent you from creating your own file (and format ) and just read the configuration from this file, it's just that you will have to c reate all the functionality.  SignatureIgnacio Machin, ignacio.machin AT dot.state.fl.us Florida Department Of Transportation Aside from rolling your own config, you're stuck, I believe. You can specify an external file for your appSettings, though, if that's what your users are going to need to mess with, though. I don't remember the parameter name exactly, but if you're using VS 2005, you can go to the appSettings secion, and get intellisense for the settings on the appSettings section. It will look something like this: <appSettings file="myApp.config" /> All key/value pairs would move into myApp.config. I also don't believe that it has to end with .config. It's been my experience that if you're programatically modifying your appSettings, you'll have problems. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks. ummm... confusing to your users? they shouldn't be looking at it anyhow (by default, most of them won't even see the extension in Windows Explorer). But more importantly, how about: confusing to future maintainers of your code or confusing to the administrator of your app? There is no reason to do this. Ok I guess I had some misconceptions about the App.config file. What am I "supposed" to store in this file if not user options and things like that? Suppose I just want to remember user settings. What is the "best" way of doing this with C# .NET? Just come up with my own format and manually parse my file? App.config is generally read only anyways. (right?) And shared by all users. If you had VS 2005/VB.NET there is a new My.Settings which supports this out of the box. (cool!) Otherwise there is a lot of options. The simplest (for me) was to save all settings in a class and just serialize it to disk as an .xml file in the user's profile directory. I've am currently using the approach described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnadvnet/html/v bnet07082003.asp Greg > Ok I guess I had some misconceptions about the App.config file. What am > I "supposed" to store in this file if not user options and things like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of doing this with C# .NET? Just come up with my own format and > manually parse my file? http://www.vb2themax.com/ShowContent.aspx?ID=5d8114d9-0e1b-457a-a66a-04c861fac4a5 (Thank m.posseth for link) Greg > App.config is generally read only anyways. (right?) And shared by all > users. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> of doing this with C# .NET? Just come up with my own format and >> manually parse my file? > http://www.vb2themax.com/ShowContent.aspx?ID=5d8114d9-0e1b-457a-a66a-04c861fac4a5 > > (Thank m.posseth for link) I used this approach a long time ago, but gave up after a while. The problem is that it is re-inventing the wheel, the code essentially loads an XML file, parses it for data which it then stores in memory. When you access data you do so through the in-memory collection, when you want to save values the XML file is written item by item. It is far simpler to use the XmlSerializer class. The simplest way to do this is: 1) create an XML class with example data that you want serialized 2) use xsd to create a schema file 3) use xsd to generate a code file from the schema. the class can then be serialized and deserialized with XmlSerializer. This does mean that you need to have a fixed schema for the configuration, but this can be thought of as an advantage. After all, your code will be written to expect only fixed configuration settings, and so your code will only work with that version. >> I've am currently using the approach described here: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnadvnet/html/v bnet07082003.asp This is a much better article, in particular the comments about isolated storage. Richard SignatureFusion Tutorial: http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/fusionWS.htm Security Tutorial: http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/securityWS.htm > ummm... confusing to your users? they shouldn't be looking at it > anyhow (by default, most of them won't even see the extension in > Windows Explorer). I think that's a crazy default option - imagine someone who knows how to use a computer (eg, you) seeing a file list like this: MyApp MyApp.exe In actual fact, the first one is called "MyApp.exe", and the second one is a .config file! (And in addition, it doesn't make people think about what they're opening - an exe is the same as a txt in their eyes!) Hi, > I think that's a crazy default option - imagine someone who knows how to > use a computer (eg, you) seeing a file list like this: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (And in addition, it doesn't make people think about what they're > opening - an exe is the same as a txt in their eyes!) You are forgetting the icon in front of it, they will see the real exe with the app icon they are used to see and they will see the config file with either a notepad icon or another not very familiar icon In the worst case it will only takes them two tries to find out the correct one SignatureIgnacio Machin, ignacio.machin AT dot.state.fl.us Florida Department Of Transportation > You are forgetting the icon in front of it, they will see the real exe with > the app icon they are used to see and they will see the config file with > either a notepad icon or another not very familiar icon > > In the worst case it will only takes them two tries to find out the correct > one And if someone (eg. a virus) writes an application called "My CV.exe" into My Documents, which has a Word icon (since apps can have their own icons), that's not very secure. The user opens My Docs to see a file called "My CV" with a word icon. A stupid user isn't going to check the details, they'll just double click. I just think "hiding" what will happen when you double-click is a silly idea! Regular home users actually get confused by extensions... This is why it's default - Once someone knows about extensions they can easily turn them on... this however has gone completely off topic >> You are forgetting the icon in front of it, they will see the real >> exe with the app icon they are used to see and they will see the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > details, they'll just double click. I just think "hiding" what will > happen when you double-click is a silly idea! > Regular home users actually get confused by extensions... This is why > it's default - Once someone knows about extensions they can easily turn > them on... > > this however has gone completely off topic As most things do in here :-) I personally believe things should be secure (I'd say not being able to tell the difference between .doc and .exe a security risk!) by default, and user friendly by option :) Anyway... Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.