Machine Config

[TARUN]

Hello All

I need to ask about the configuration file in .NET,
There are Two config File
1. Web Config
2. Machine config
I understand the the usage of Web config , but not able to understand
the usage of Machine config.
I read in the article that you can also write your database connection
string in Machine Config
if this is true then why the people using web config , we can write the
whole configurartion
setting in machine.

Can any explain me why .net frame work requires two configuration file
if we write the same content (config setting) in both the files ????


With regards
Tarun Sinha

 

[Hans Kesting]

Hello All

I need to ask about the configuration file in .NET,
There are Two config File
1. Web Config
2. Machine config
I understand the the usage of Web config , but not able to understand
the usage of Machine config.
I read in the article that you can also write your database connection
string in Machine Config
if this is true then why the people using web config , we can write the
whole configurartion
setting in machine.

Can any explain me why .net frame work requires two configuration file
if we write the same content (config setting) in both the files ????

With regards
Tarun Sinha

machine.config is a single file that holds configuration for the entire
machine,
web.config is web-application specific. You might have multiple copies.

Example: we have multiple sites on our server, that need separate
connection strings!


Hans Kesting

 

[Rick]

You can use any number of XXX.Config. The Machine.Config provides
configuration settings for the ENTIRE web server. Each Web.Config
provides configuration settings to its OWN directory, and all sub
directories below it. Configuration files in child directories can
supply configuration information in addition to that inherited from
parent directories, and the child directory configuration settings can
OVERRIDE or modify settings defined in parent directories.

-Rick

 

[TARUN]

Thank's for repl me so soon, but,
if we have an multiple site then we have also an mutiple web config ..
then why we require for
machine config, we can get the info about configuration setting from
web config instead of machine config

with regards
tarun sinha

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Tarun,

you may want to have machine-wide settings regardless of application-specific settings.

The machine-wide settings are written in machine.config,
and the application-wide settings are written into any of a number of web.configs.

Also, in a web-hosting situation, you might want to disable certain features,
or assign certain security features per machine, and not only per application.

An example, would be the ability to assign security permissions for the whole machine.

You certainly don't want individual users ( which could be many )
to be able to change security settings for the whole machine.

 

[MSDN]

Big misconception here.

read this carefully.
Microsoft named "machine.config" incorrectly. Microsoft should have called
it "framework.config"
machine.config is not for the entire machine but for the entire machine that
is using a specific framework
Because you can have Framework 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and xx.x all at the same time
on one machine then you can have multiple machine.config files. One for
each framework.

This is a trick question on an interview.

Also machine.config "framework.config" has allot of configurations that
are common and then you can specialize your configurations in your
web.config for each web application you have on your server.

SA

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Microsoft named "machine.config" incorrectly. Microsoft should have called it
"framework.config"

Let's not get hung up on semantics here.

It *is* machine.config...for the framework version
installed in the directory where that machine.config is found.

i.e., that "machine.config" has machine-wide scope for that framework version.

Machine.config is aptly named.

It's OK to have more machine.config files in other framework installation directories.
There's no difference in naming the file "machine.config" or "framework.config".

Something else to keep in mind, in regard to the OP's question, is that some of the configuration
parameters in machine.config refer to desktop and console apps, and don't necessarily refer to
*web* apps...so a "machine.config" file can have other purposes than configuring web apps.

 

[MSDN]

I disagree, We are not hung up here we need better names when possible.

Why companies correct, modify things then? Why not keep everything the
same?
machine.config is deceiving.
framework.config would have been better. Over the years many companies
including Microsoft have named things in a way that can be better. Thanks
to Microsoft things are changing for the best because Microsoft is listening
to people like us. Good example is local.live.com, New Hotmail Beta, etc.
etc. etc..

If we get stuck in the past we never improve the future. If we don't look
for improvements we never get better.

Thanks for your thoughts.

SA


you are right machine.config is not only for web.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks for yours.

I still think that it's a semantic thing...and that machine.config is aptly named.

 

[MSDN]

Juan,

The name framework.config - or equivalent has lots of implicit meta data in
it.
How many users ( including myself in the past ) got confused about
machine.config vs. every framework has a machine.config for the entire
machine?
At times that saves time when things are precisely named.

God Bless and thank you again.

SA

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

How many users ( including myself in the past ) got confused about machine.config vs. every
framework has a machine.config for the entire machine?

heh, heh...

So far you're the only one I've encountered...but don't let that stop you.

 

[TARUN]

Thank alot for explaining me the concept so well.Now I got it

Tarun Sinha

 

[iftikharqamar]

new versions...

hi guys,
to me machine.config seems to be a perfect name as it is for each individual virtual machine. Any ways dont want to initiate that discussion again but want your comments that installation of framework 3.5, ruins the machine.config of frame work 2.0. Any thoughts and cures ?