Intearact with DB ?
-
Without using SqlCommand or CommandBuilder object, Is it possible to interact with database? :confused:
Yes, you could always use something like ODBCCommand, or is that not what you're asking? If you are using SQL Server, I'd use SqlCommand over the ODBC equivalent anyday because it uses the native SQL driver, rather than having to go via the ODBC transport.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Without using SqlCommand or CommandBuilder object, Is it possible to interact with database? :confused:
Sounds like a test question. Certainly you can do without CommandBuilder, but ADO.net requires a Command, even if it's buried in a DataAdapter.
-
Yes, you could always use something like ODBCCommand, or is that not what you're asking? If you are using SQL Server, I'd use SqlCommand over the ODBC equivalent anyday because it uses the native SQL driver, rather than having to go via the ODBC transport.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
I am not specific to sql only ! What i want to know without using Oledb, Odbc, Sql, SqlClient namespace Is it possible to interact with DB ? Now don't tell you can create your own library from scratch like fraework have :doh: May be i am asking worng ? ( As i don't exactly recall ? ) But it is something like same as my initial post :confused:
-
Sounds like a test question. Certainly you can do without CommandBuilder, but ADO.net requires a Command, even if it's buried in a DataAdapter.
-
I am not specific to sql only ! What i want to know without using Oledb, Odbc, Sql, SqlClient namespace Is it possible to interact with DB ? Now don't tell you can create your own library from scratch like fraework have :doh: May be i am asking worng ? ( As i don't exactly recall ? ) But it is something like same as my initial post :confused:
Hum Dum wrote:
May be i am asking worng ?
Pretty much. ADO.net relies on derived versions of Connection, Command, and other sundry classes. Each database -- Sql Server, Oracle, MySql, Ingres, Firebird, Cache, etc. -- has its particular classes in some namespace; if you want to use ADO.net, you will need to use the classes in the appropriate namespace. Or use something (e.g. Linq) that hides the ADO.net so you don't see it even though you're using it. Or don't use ADO.net -- you can use older database access techniques, but ADO.net is far superior to any others I have used.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Sounds like a test question.
Yup it is !
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
even if it's buried in a DataAdapter.
That i know (and is my intial thought) also Odbc, Oledb namespaces. But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
Hum Dum wrote:
But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
How do you think we did it before ADO.net came along (and lifted us from the dark ages)?
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Sounds like a test question.
Yup it is !
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
even if it's buried in a DataAdapter.
That i know (and is my intial thought) also Odbc, Oledb namespaces. But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
Hum Dum wrote:
But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
Well, you could always write your own protocol but that's time consuming, prone to errors and a bit, how shall I put it, boneheaded stupid.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Hum Dum wrote:
But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
How do you think we did it before ADO.net came along (and lifted us from the dark ages)?
I don't know about you, but I sacrificed chickens and did the hoodoo dance.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Sounds like a test question.
Yup it is !
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
even if it's buried in a DataAdapter.
That i know (and is my intial thought) also Odbc, Oledb namespaces. But without all these namspaces. Is there any way ?
Hum Dum wrote:
But without all these namspaces.Is there any way ?
Those namespaces exist to serve you that very purpose. If you don't want to use any of those, AND you don't want to write your own stuff from scratch, then the only way is to p/invoke into the beast and use one of the things it has to offer. Then it would be pointless to use .NET.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
Without using SqlCommand or CommandBuilder object, Is it possible to interact with database? :confused:
-
Hum Dum wrote:
Without using SqlCommand or CommandBuilder object, Is it possible to interact with database?
Yes, by capturing the output of SQLCMD/Isql.exe for example.
I are Troll :suss:
I hadn't thought of that. MySql also has a command-line utility.
-
I don't know about you, but I sacrificed chickens and did the hoodoo dance.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
Ah, PRO*C, I did that too.
-
I hadn't thought of that. MySql also has a command-line utility.
So does 'orrible.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Without using SqlCommand or CommandBuilder object, Is it possible to interact with database? :confused:
You could use LINQ to SQL[^]
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
