Good idea, it will be better to reserve the original "name" and define a new attribute, such as "factory", as:
<provider name="sqlServer2.0" factory="System.Data.SqlClient" ... /> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Ron Grabowski <rongrabow...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > Our IDbProvider infrastructure was necessary in the .NET 1.1 days because > the Framework didn't have a good way of abstracting common System.Data > interfaces. Since we're focusing on .NET 2.0+ should we consider replacing > our home grown IDbProvider with the Framework's DbProviderFactory? I tried > writing an adapter between the two but realized it might be easier to just > replace our code with more modern constructs...especially since we're > working with and entirely codebase (V3). The entry in the sqlMap.config file > might look like this: > > <provider name="System.Data.SqlClient" > usePositionalParameters="false" > useParameterPrefixInSql="true" > useParameterPrefixInParameter="true" > parameterPrefix="@" > allowMARS="false" /> > > By using sane defaults would might be able to get away with just: > > <provider name="System.Data.SqlClient" /> > > for the common providers like SqlClient, MySql, Oracle, and Sqlite. > > Users will still be able to add their own providers via the App.Config > using the standard .NET mechanisms. > >
