I'm trying to figure out how to use Solution Configuration Management in Visual Studio to set a MySQL Connection string depending on what build configuration but am fairly new to this.
I've found plenty of info on the XML for the App.config file for creating connection strings, but am unclear on how to tell the different configuration modes (excuse my lack of known terminology) to use different connection strings.
EG. I want independent environments for development and production, each use a different SQL database so as to not be developing on any production database.
What I have so far in app.config:
<connectionStrings>
<add name="Debug" connectionString="debguconnectionstring"/>
<add name="Production" connectionString="productionconnectionstring"/>
</connectionStrings>
It may simply be that my lack of terminology is hindering my Google-ing capability, so even if someone could point me to a guide or dupe thread that would be excellent.
Thanks!
EDIT:
Thanks all for your answers, sadly I can only mark one of them as the correct answer. +Rep for everyone, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again!
This is the article which shows how to build such a config:
https://mitasoft.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/multipleappconfig/
Points to remember:
give same name to the connection string, only change the other details, so in code you'll be using same name but it will change depending on the Configuration (release vs debug)
PS: Sorry not enough reputation points to post as comment to question
You will need three config files, like this:
- app.config
- app.Debug.config
- app.Release.config
Also there is already a question for this here:
How to select different app.config for several build configurations
You're looking for config transforms, (msdn article: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/dd465318%28v=vs.100%29.aspx)
However this will only work for web project. Using this in other projects will require custom code or, as I usually do, external packages, e.g. Slow Cheetah (https://www.nuget.org/packages/SlowCheetah/) that will allow you to use transforms in any config file.
The syntax is quite simple. You define the same node on the additional configuration file and then set the attribute "xdt:Transform" with the desired mode and "xdt:Locator" with the attribute you want to match with the transform (e.g. giving it xdt:Locator="Match(name)" will transform the item with the same name attribute)
Related
I need to change the config file myApp.exe.configat runtime. How to make sure that the program would be started to work with a modified file without leaving the program?
It may be necessary to use a ConfigurationManager.
Thank you!
It's definitely possible, I did this at work a while back. Essentially, you can load a new app.config file into memory, then tell .NET to use the new file. From that point on, all variables in the Configurarion section change when read using the standard .NET calls.
Sorry I cant give specifics, you might have to Google some more - but at least you know its possible!!
Having said this, I believe this is the wrong architectural path to go down. Far better to store your settings in an external file in your own format. It really is a royal pain to update app.config, and if we hadnt had to do it for compatibility reasons with legacy assemblies it would not have been worth it in the least. The legacy assemblies used WCF which in itself was a mistake. WCF is a ghastly architectural morass, with few redeeming features compared to any of the modern alternatives.
Update
See Overriding App.Config settings.
See Change default app.config at runtime.
As I transfer my application in C#.net from one computer to another, I have to change the connection string every time as the location of the Database file has changed.
How can I can I prevent this,so that I don't have to change the connection string again and again?
When location of the database changes, something has to change somewhere. Back in the ODBC days, you could define a system-wide connection and specify the just the name in the connection string. But if the server moves you would have to change the ODBC anyway.
I can think of a few solutions here. One is that if your database runs on the local machine, use the localhost instead of the machine name.
In case it is a file, create a network share and put it on that so that you use \\localhost\shareName\file.db.
If it is a server database and could be on other machines, use a DNS name by using a host file and assign a common name so that you could do that in different networks.
This one is an old one that comes up from time to time.
Visual Studio has the ability to support multiple build environments and will allow you to specify environment specific values (i.e. databse connection strings) so that you may test wherever you want.
Pulled this from the Gu's blog and full post may be seen here:
It turns out you can easily automate this configuration process within the Visual Studio build environment (and do so in a way that works both within the IDE, as well as with command-line/automated builds). Below are the high-level steps you take to do this. They work with both VS 2005 and VS 2008.
Use ASP.NET Web Application Projects (which have MSBuild based project files)
Open the VS Configuration Manager and create new "Dev", "QA", "Staging" build configurations for your project and solution
Add new "web.config.dev", "web.config.qa", and "web.config.staging" files in your project and customize them to contain the app's mode specific configuration settings
Add a new "pre-build event" command to your project file that can automatically copy over the web.config file in your project with the appropriate mode specific version each time you build the project (for example: if your solution was in the "Dev" configuration, it would copy the web.config.dev settings to the main web.config file).
In VS 2010 I believe most of the setup for this is done for you when you make your new application, but the principles are still the same. You can skip the pre-build event in favor of pulling the connection string in via code if you're comfortable with that way of doing things. There is an example of this on StackOverflow here on this answered question
The start of the answer (or at least how I'm more likely to implement this) is to store each connection string value in a separate connections.config file with a name unique to the environment. This will only contain the values from connectionStrings portion of the web.config file. I like doing this because it means adding a new environment doesn't mean a developer touching the main web.config file and you can also do some server-side trickery to remove the database connection strings from the site's webroot making it a bit more secure.
Method for removing the connectionStrings to another fole may be seen here: http://www.bigresource.com/Tracker/Track-ms_sql-cberGbNT/
I would also look into having a network accessible version of the database instead of making each developer have one in their environment. If you have to have disconnected work being done that makes sense, but from a management standpoint there should really only be one database for each stage of the project (Development, Staging, and Production).
Hope that's helpful, and feel free to ask follow-up questions on anything that doesn't make sense.
Use a relative path. For most scenarios, you can just use the built-in |DataDirectory|, which translates to the base directory you're running from (or App_Data in ASP.NET scenarios).
If you are using a client-server database, like SQL Express, then you should also set the server name to something like .\SQLEXPRESS - which will use the local instance.
what I usually do is having a configFile.txt that can be modified.
I can easily read it from the program and since it's path is fixed (relative path), I don't need to change the code anymore.
I don't know if this is a good or bad habit but it works fine.
Here it takes the first line :
public string pathConfig = "../../myProject/configFile.txt";
string yourDBPath = File.ReadLines(pathConfig).Skip(0).Take(1).Split(':')[3];
I want to hide app.config. There are some things like webservice address that shouldn't be visible to user. Maybe it`s some way to put this config in resources?
Thanks
I think that encrypting app/web config would be a better option.
See this topic for more info Encrypting appSettings in web.config
Also codeproject has a plenty of articles.
To the user of the code? To the application user? This question is very generalized and not specific.
Try to figure out whether the settings in your app.config file can be applied programmatically.
The most settings in the .NET framework can be used declarative and programmatically.
If you are really concerned about end-users snooping into the configuration details of your program, it will be very hard to hide such information (even if it's contained in code since it can be reverse compiled using tools like Reflector). You can only make it harder by applying some encryption scheme, like obfuscation that encrypts the internal string table of your assembly. Then again, it's easy to use a packet sniffer tool to obtain the remote URI your program is communicating with.
The way I currently handle this is by having multiple config files such as:
web.config
web.Prod.config
web.QA.config
web.Dev.config
When the project gets deployed to the different environments I just rename the corresponding file with the correct settings.
Anyone have suggestions on how to handle this better?
EDIT:
Here are some of the things that change in each config:
WCF Client Endpoint urls and security
Custom Database configs
Session connection strings
log4net settings
Scott Gu had an article on this once. The solution he presented was to use a Pre-build event to copy the correct config into place depending on the build configuration chosen.
I also noticed that there already is a similar question here on SO.
Transforms seem really helpful for this. You can replace certain sections with different rules.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd465318(v=vs.100).aspx
The way we've been doing it is to override the AppSettings section:
<appSettings file="../AppSettingsOverride.config">
<add key="key" value="override" />
...
</appSettings>
This only works for the appSettings section and so is only useful to a degree. I'd be very interested in more robust solutions.
Edit Below
Just watched this:
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/10-4/10-4-Episode-10-Making-Web-Deployment-Easier/
VS2010 has config transforms which look pretty awesome, should make multiple configurations a complete breeze.
In Visual Studio, I create xcopy build events and I store all the config files in a /config folder. You only need one event for all configurations if you name your files after the build configuration: i.e. overwriting web.config with /config/web.$(Configuration).config
My favorite way to tackle this is with the configSource attribute. Admittedly I only use this on one element (<connectionStrings>) but it does provide an easy way to swap in and out different segments of a web.config (which I do during install time via a WebSetup project).
I also use the web.DEV.config, web.TEST.config, web.PROD.config etc.
I find this way the most easiest, simplest and straight-forward way if your projects are not complex. I don't like making things more complicated than neccessary.
However, I have used NAnt and I think it works well for this. You can set up builds for your different environments. NAnt takes some reading to learn how to use it but it's pretty flexible.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210513225023/http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/120104-1.aspx
http://nant.sourceforge.net/
I used it along with CruiseControl.net and NUnit to perform automatic daily builds with unit test validation and thought they worked well together.
It really depends on what the difference is between the environments that is causing you to use different web.config files. Can you give more information as to why each environment currently needs a different one?
We have a few workarounds (not all of them are done with web.config but the same idea)
We include multiple configuration files in the packaged deployment. During installation we specify environment that we are installing on.
Migrate all environment specific settings to the Database server for that environment. WebServer provides its environment when requesting server name
Provide multiple settings (1 per environment) and using code request different settings.
Combination of 2 and 3 (Override a part of the settings based on the environment - for example application server name)
Through most different version management software (subversion, git, etc) you can ignore specific files.
Thus, in subversion, I'd have:
configure.template.php - This file is versioned and contains templated configuration data, such as empty DSN's
configure.php - This file is ignored, so that changes to it do not get tracked.
In subversion, the way to do this is:
svn pe svn:ignore .
It'll open your editor, then you type
configure.php
Save, exit, checkin your changes, and you're good to go.
I'm really confused by the various configuration options for .Net configuration of dll's, ASP.net websites etc in .Net v2 - especially when considering the impact of a config file at the UI / end-user end of the chain.
So, for example, some of the applications I work with use settings which we access with:
string blah = AppLib.Properties.Settings.Default.TemplatePath;
Now, this option seems cool because the members are stongly typed, and I won't be able to type in a property name that doesn't exist in the Visual Studio 2005 IDE. We end up with lines like this in the App.Config of a command-line executable project:
<connectionStrings>
<add name="AppConnectionString" connectionString="XXXX" />
<add name="AppLib.Properties.Settings.AppConnectionString" connectionString="XXXX" />
</connectionStrings>
(If we don't have the second setting, someone releasing a debug dll to the live box could have built with the debug connection string embedded in it - eek)
We also have settings accessed like this:
string blah = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["TemplatePath_PDF"];
Now, these seem cool because we can access the setting from the dll code, or the exe / aspx code, and all we need in the Web or App.config is:
<appSettings>
<add key="TemplatePath_PDF" value="xxx"/>
</appSettings>
However, the value of course may not be set in the config files, or the string name may be mistyped, and so we have a different set of problems.
So... if my understanding is correct, the former methods give strong typing but bad sharing of values between the dll and other projects. The latter provides better sharing, but weaker typing.
I feel like I must be missing something. For the moment, I'm not even concerned with the application being able to write-back values to the configuration files, encryption or anything like that. Also, I had decided that the best way to store any non-connection strings was in the DB... and then the very next thing that I have to do is store phone numbers to text people in case of DB connection issues, so they must be stored outside the DB!
If you use the settings tab in VS 2005+, you can add strongly typed settings and get intellisense, such as in your first example.
string phoneNum = Properties.Settings.Default.EmergencyPhoneNumber;
This is physically stored in App.Config.
You could still use the config file's appSettings element, or even roll your own ConfigurationElementCollection, ConfigurationElement, and ConfigurationSection subclasses.
As to where to store your settings, database or config file, in the case of non-connection strings: It depends on your application architecture. If you've got an application server that is shared by all the clients, use the aforementioned method, in App.Config on the app server. Otherwise, you may have to use a database. Placing it in the App.Config on each client will cause versioning/deployment headaches.
Nij, our difference in thinking comes from our different perspectives. I'm thinking about developing enterprise apps that predominantly use WinForms clients. In this instance the business logic is contained on an application server. Each client would need to know the phone number to dial, but placing it in the App.config of each client poses a problem if that phone number changes. In that case it seems obvious to store application configuration information (or application wide settings) in a database and have each client read the settings from there.
The other, .NET way, (I make the distinction because we have, in the pre .NET days, stored application settings in DB tables) is to store application settings in the app.config file and access via way of the generated Settings class.
I digress. Your situation sounds different. If all different apps are on the same server, you could place the settings in a web.config at a higher level. However if they are not, you could also have a seperate "configuration service" that all three applications talk to get their shared settings. At least in this solution you're not replicating the code in three places, raising the potential of maintenance problems when adding settings. Sounds a bit over engineered though.
My personal preference is to use strong typed settings. I actually generate my own strongly typed settings class based on what it's my settings table in the database. That way I can have the best of both worlds. Intellisense to my settings and settings stored in the db (note: that's in the case where there's no app server).
I'm interested in learning other peoples strategies for this too :)
I think your confusion comes from the fact that it looks like your first example is a home-brewed library, not part of .NET.
The configurationmanager example is an example of built-in functionality.
I support Rob Grays answer, but wanted to add to it slightly. This may be overly obvious, but if you are using multiple clients, the app.config should store all settings that are installation specific and the database should store pretty much everything else.
Single client (or server) apps are somewhat different. Here it is more personal choice really. A noticable exception would be if the setting is the ID of a record in the database, in which case I would always store the setting in the database with a foreign key to ensure the reference doesn't get deleted.
Yes - I think I / we are in the headache situation Rob descibes - we have something like 5 or 6 different web-sites and applications across three independent servers that need to access the same DB. As things stand, each one has its own Web or App.config with the settings described setting and / or overriding settings in our main DB-access dll library.
Rob - when you say application server, I'm not sure what you mean? The nearest thing I can think is that we could at least share some settings between sites on the same machine by putting them in a web.config higher in the directory hierarchy... but this too is not something I've been able to investigate... having thought it more important to understand which of the strong or weak-typed routes is 'better'.