Yes, <providers /> would become optional.
________________________________ From: Michael McCurrey <mmccur...@gmail.com> To: user-cs@ibatis.apache.org Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 9:27:27 AM Subject: Re: iBATIS.NET Welcomes Michael McCurrey as Committer That's a good idea. Is your thought that the providers element in the config becomes optional then? On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Ron Grabowski <rongrabow...@yahoo.com> wrote: >A simple-ish first patch might be to embed a providers.config into the >assembly and implement the functionality described in this documentation from >DbProviderFactory: > >/// <summary> >/// Gets the IDbProvider given an identifying name. >>/// </summary> >/// <remarks> >/// Familiar names for the .NET 2.0 provider model are supported, i.e. >/// System.Data.SqlClient. Refer to the documentation for a complete >/// listing of supported DbProviders and their names. >>/// </remarks> >/// <param name="providerInvariantName">Name of the provider invariant.</param> >/// <returns>An IDbProvider</returns> >public IDbProvider GetDbProvider(string > providerInvariantName) > >such that someone can simply use "ibatis.sqlServer2.0" without having to worry >about a providers.config in their project. > >Add a static constructor to DbProviderFactory and load in all the built-in >providers there? > > > ________________________________ From: Clinton Begin <clinton.be...@gmail.com> >To: user-cs@ibatis.apache.org >Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:35:52 PM >Subject: iBATIS.NET Welcomes Michael McCurrey as Committer > > >Welcome Aboard Michael! > >Clinton > -- Michael J. McCurrey Read with me at http://www.mccurrey.com http://chaoticmindramblings.blogspot.com/
