Coming from you, that's a precious compliment indeed! Thanks. :P
On Sep 25, 11:59 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
