By the way, here's what the exception looks like without this change:
System.TypeInitializationException: An exception was thrown by the type
initializer for System.Web.Security.Membership --->
System.ArgumentNullException: Argument cannot be null.
at System.Configuration.Provider.ProviderCollection.Add
(System.Configuration.Provider.ProviderBase provider) [0x0]
at System.Web.Security.MembershipProviderCollection.Add
(System.Configuration.Provider.ProviderBase provider) [0x0]
at System.Web.Configuration.ProvidersHelper.InstantiateProviders
(System.Configuration.ProviderSettingsCollection configProviders,
System.Configuration.Provider.ProviderCollection providers, System.Type
providerType) [0x0]
at System.Web.Security.Membership..cctor () [0x0] --- End of
inner exception stack trace ---
jr
joel reed wrote:
> The patch below enhances the usefulness of
> ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider under mono, but may not be acceptable
> for inclusion in svn. I'm posting this in case some one else runs into a
> similar problem as I encountered.
>
> We have a Membership Provider that derives from
> ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider and then overrides Initialize and
> ValidateUser. Our ValidateUser method looks in web.config and either
> does an validation against AD or our legacy authentication scheme.
>
> This works on mono (if configured to not use AD), as long as the
> Initialize method in ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider calls
> base.Initialize. Calling base.Initialize is important as this is how
> ProviderBase sets the Name property which lets the Provider be put into
> a ProviderCollection. Without the Name, Adding the provider to the
> collection fails with a ArgumentNullException.
>
> Currently ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider just does a "throw
> NotImplemented".
>
> If instead we said:
>
> mcs/class/System.Web/System.Web.Security/ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider.cs.orig
>
> 2007-04-03 20:59:32.0 -0400
> +++
> mcs/class/System.Web/System.Web.Security/ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider.cs
> 2007-04-03 20:59:50.0 -0400
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ namespace System.Web.Security {
> [MonoTODO("Not implemented")]
> public override void Initialize (string name,
> NameValueCollection config)
> {
> -throw new NotImplementedException ();
> +base.Initialize(name, config);
> }
>
> [MonoTODO("Not implemented")]
>
> The class would be slightly more useful in the above scenario. Probably
> this circumvents some policy about MonoTODOs, but again just want to
> post this info somewhere for others to google. It might even improve
> things just by calling base.Initialize and then throwing, as you could
> catch that exception and still be in business. Thoughts?
>
> jr
>
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
