ADO.NET 2.0 - The latest update.

re: Whidbey ADO.NET 2.0 System.Transactions Distributed Transactions. part1

TrackBack — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:24:00 GMT

re: ADO.NET 2.0 - The latest update.

William — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:17:00 GMT

Yes, definitely remember that. I think he interviewed here yesterday ;-). I haven't played with the permissions b/c I was doing it at home and just using ADMIN. I'll have to tinker when I get home. It's definitely got the potential to wreak havoc in an idiots hands - no doubt about it - and for that matter - SO DOES ALL OF THE NEW STUFF.

Literally, all of it with very few exceptions.. YOu get some SERIOUS new power and a LOT Of rreally cool functionality - but put it in the hands of a dipshit that thinks he can just wing it without understanding how it works, and KABOOM. MARS seems like the best candidate as does notification services but there's plenty more. About the only thing they won't get in trouble with if they use wrong is the BinarySerialization of Datasets ;-)

re: ADO.NET 2.0 - The latest update.

William — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:49:00 GMT

Remember my Mr. Certs story? The bcp API from that story is what you are talking about. I was using it via ODBC in raw C. Apparently they must have wrapped that API for ADO.NET now. Remember how I was saying I can now push 500,000 to 1,000,000 records into the database across the network in around 20 seconds? That is because of that API. I think the bcp API has to be one of the coolest features in Sql Server it's nice to see they wrapped it for .Net now too. I wonder if they fixed the permissions issue. When I was first doing it you had to connect as a datbase owner or it would give you an error saying the bcp API was only available to be run by owner level connections. Can you do it in ADO.NET with permissions less than owner? If you can that means they changed the underlying API and I can reconfigure my connection protocols. I hate having apps that run as owner, to much bad sh!t can happen if you f#ck something up. But then again I can understand the logic behind that setting though. Do you really want somebody pushing a million+ records into your database if they aren't an owner?