Prev: Selecting the font size matching the control's height
Next: Easy question
From: David Kerber on 10 Feb 2010 11:03
In article <e91cFEmqKHA.6064(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
alain.dekker(a)NO.SPAM.loma.com says...
>
> Thanks. I've started coding in VB.NET (1.1) and its actually very different
> to VB6, which was an excellent language. Not a step forward in my view. I
> know that MS have advanced XML and the registry as the preferred
> serialisation technique(s) in .NET, but I do note that INI files refuse to
> die and with good reason - they are simple to use and easy to understand. In
> fact, I'm a little puzzled why MS want us to use XML over INI files.

IMO, the advantage of XML over plain .ini files is that you can use a
more complex hierarchy if necessary. The one that I don't understand is
why anybody would use the registry in preference to either one.

D
From: Paul Clement on 10 Feb 2010 13:44
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:54:58 -0000, "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker(a)NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:

� Thanks. I've started coding in VB.NET (1.1) and its actually very different
� to VB6, which was an excellent language. Not a step forward in my view. I
� know that MS have advanced XML and the registry as the preferred
� serialisation technique(s) in .NET, but I do note that INI files refuse to
� die and with good reason - they are simple to use and easy to understand. In
� fact, I'm a little puzzled why MS want us to use XML over INI files.
�
� This article gives a fully functional (I've tested it and it works well)
� method of using INI files in VB.NET:
�
� http://www.developer.com/article.php/3287991
�
� Thanks again,
� Alain
�

XML is a standard and they also use it in their .config files as well as for intermediate data
storage. I would suspect that is why it's the preferred method.

Personally, I don't see any reason not to continue to use INI files. That is, as long as they're put
where they belong (not in the application folder).


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Ralph on 10 Feb 2010 17:39
David Kerber wrote:
> In article <e91cFEmqKHA.6064(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> alain.dekker(a)NO.SPAM.loma.com says...
>>
>> Thanks. I've started coding in VB.NET (1.1) and its actually very
>> different to VB6, which was an excellent language. Not a step
>> forward in my view. I know that MS have advanced XML and the
>> registry as the preferred serialisation technique(s) in .NET, but I
>> do note that INI files refuse to die and with good reason - they are
>> simple to use and easy to understand. In fact, I'm a little puzzled
>> why MS want us to use XML over INI files.
>
> IMO, the advantage of XML over plain .ini files is that you can use a
> more complex hierarchy if necessary. The one that I don't understand
> is why anybody would use the registry in preference to either one.
>

Because the Registry can manage binary data and is much faster.

-ralph


From: Tom Shelton on 10 Feb 2010 17:46
On 2010-02-10, Ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Kerber wrote:
>> In article <e91cFEmqKHA.6064(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
>> alain.dekker(a)NO.SPAM.loma.com says...
>>>
>>> Thanks. I've started coding in VB.NET (1.1) and its actually very
>>> different to VB6, which was an excellent language. Not a step
>>> forward in my view. I know that MS have advanced XML and the
>>> registry as the preferred serialisation technique(s) in .NET, but I
>>> do note that INI files refuse to die and with good reason - they are
>>> simple to use and easy to understand. In fact, I'm a little puzzled
>>> why MS want us to use XML over INI files.
>>
>> IMO, the advantage of XML over plain .ini files is that you can use a
>> more complex hierarchy if necessary. The one that I don't understand
>> is why anybody would use the registry in preference to either one.
>>
>
> Because the Registry can manage binary data and is much faster.
>

You can put binary in xml as well. It's quite simple actually - it's called
base-64 :)

--
Tom Shelton
From: Ralph on 10 Feb 2010 18:02
Alain Dekker wrote:
> Thanks. I've started coding in VB.NET (1.1) and its actually very
> different to VB6, which was an excellent language. Not a step forward
> in my view. I know that MS have advanced XML and the registry as the
> preferred serialisation technique(s) in .NET, but I do note that INI
> files refuse to die and with good reason - they are simple to use and
> easy to understand. In fact, I'm a little puzzled why MS want us to
> use XML over INI files.
>

Because as noted by Mr. Kerber XML allows for deeper hierarchies (more
complex structures), and while still 'human readable' also allows for more
datatypes, ie self-describing. Although don't get me wrong - XML is still
'text'.

'Text' configuration files have always had the advantage of simplicity and
being able to be read and edited with a common editor - as long as you
understood the structure - and that was always the problem - you had to know
the format. Other O/Ss, such as Unix, also use text configuration files, but
often with vastly different and unique formats. MS settled on the 'Dec' INI
format and used it consistently for 'text' and the Registry for 'binary'.

But quickly out-grew the INI limitations and migrated to pushing everyone
use the Registery. But then that got out of hand so adopted XML for its
'common' text format, and is now suggesting everyone use it.

MS has a history of mood swings. <g>

-ralph



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Selecting the font size matching the control's height
Next: Easy question