It may not be necessary to use the try statements within the using statement. The Using statement should handle the error checking when opening and closing the db connection. If I am wrong about this let me know, I am mature when it I receive constructive criticism.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:59 PM, dboy haha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > That was pretty cool, a few intermidiate programmers like myself might have > missed a detail like that. Thanks for the explaination Cerebrus and that was > cool how Rhazzy and yourself handled that. > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Cerebrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> No problem, Rhaazy. I apologize for not being explicit enough in my >> first post. ;-) >> >> On Sep 25, 12:35 am, rhaazy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Thanks for explaining that cerebrus. >> > >> > I thought your first post was made in jest, but I see I was mistaken. >> > >> > I was at first annoyed you would find it necessary to speak directly >> > to me as if my post was any more serious than yours, but got over it >> > once I realized I just learned something. >> > >> > cheers. >> > >> > On Sep 24, 3:15 pm, Joe Enos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > With my post, I was thinking of my company's data layer logic - the >> > > DataReader object is passed to a private method inside the same class, >> > > for the sole purpose of converting the result into an object. The >> > > reader is not passed outside of the data layer to anywhere else. >> > >> > > I absolutely agree with Cerebrus that it should not leave the data >> > > layer. >> > >> > > On Sep 24, 11:28 am, Cerebrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > > Sundar, >> > >> > > > Read my post again. And then again. >> > >> > > > Guys, was my post really so ambiguous ? I don't mind anyone >> > > > disagreeing with me but I thought it was obvious to everyone (even >> the >> > > > OP, I would say) that any object can be passed as a parameter. I >> would >> > > > not assume the question to be so naïve. The question is significant >> > > > because the DataReader is not just *any* object. Rhaazy, in my >> > > > opinion, that is not the "unnecessary" part of the question, but the >> > > > crucial part of the question. It is what makes the question worth a >> > > > second thought. >> > >> > > > I would strongly discourage anyone passing around an active >> DataReader >> > > > through various layers and applications. I would much rather extract >> > > > the data into another data store or collection first and dispose of >> > > > the DataReader immediately. >> > >> > > > But that's just me. >> > >> > > > On Sep 24, 11:05 pm, "sundar irene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > data reader is not disconnected object only dataset is >> disconnected object >> > > > > On 9/24/08, Cerebrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > "Alright" ?? No, I don't think it would be alright at all. If >> it were >> > > > > > a disconnected data store, I wouldn't have any reservations, >> though. >> > >> > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:50 pm, Benj Nunez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > > Hello everyone, >> > >> > > > > > > Just out of curiosity: Is it alright to pass a datareader >> object to a >> > > > > > > method or not?- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DotNetDevelopment, VB.NET, C# .NET, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, XML, XML Web Services,.NET Remoting" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://cm.megasolutions.net/forums/default.aspx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
