Hi Gert, Thanks for the checkin.
Atsushi Eno Gert Driesen wrote: > > Hi John, > > This is now "fixed" in SVN (with matching unit tests). > > Gert > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *John > Anderson > *Sent:* vrijdag 31 augustus 2007 10:19 > *To:* Atsushi Eno > *Cc:* mono-devel > *Subject:* Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] > System.Configuration.Provider.ProviderBase.cs > > On 8/31/07, *Atsushi Eno* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Your code does not verify that your change must be correct. It > just shows the fact that it *affects* on our ASP.NET > <http://ASP.NET> behavior > (Or is that a general way for .NET developers to identify the > source of bugs?). What I expected was rather like below: > > using System; > using System.Collections.Specialized; > using System.Configuration.Provider; > > public class MyProvider : ProviderBase > { > public static void Main () > { > NameValueCollection config = new NameValueCollection (); > config ["name"] = "Name"; > config ["description"] = "DESC"; > config ["foo"] = "FOO"; > Console.WriteLine (config ["description"]); > MyProvider p = new MyProvider (); > p.Initialize ("Foo", config); > Console.WriteLine (config ["name"]); > Console.WriteLine (config ["description"]); > Console.WriteLine (config ["foo"]); > Console.WriteLine ("{0} {1}", p.Name, p.Description); > } > } > > Yes, you were right, this test shows how funny behavior .net does. > > > Sorry about my test, Yours is much better. But as you can see with your > test, on MS.NET <http://MS.NET> > it removes the description config. This is a pretty well known behavior > of the provider, I've seen > many code examples of custom providers where they check config after > running base initialize to check > if any unknown attributes were defined in the config. > > Thanks _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list