• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 194
  • Last Modified:

removing datacontrol

I have a usercontrol (2 text boxes + 3 option buttons) that is used in a datarepeater. The fields in the usercontrol are bound to the ADO data control.

My question is - can i bind these fields to a data source class, instead?

Would getting rid of the datacontrol help speed up my app.?

thanks

0
jlymn
Asked:
jlymn
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
1 Solution
 
daffyduck14milCommented:
Hi,

Yes, you can bind the textboxes and option buttons to a Data source class. You will loose the ADO Datacontrol, but get a reference to the DataBindings object.

There is a good "how to create your own data source class" in the MSDN library at the location: Visual Studio Documentation, Visual Basic Documentation, Using Visual basic, Programmers Guide, Programming with Objects, creating Data-aware classes.

If it will speed up the execution of your program, I haven't noticed it. What I did notice is a great increase in maintainability, and if you ever want to scale the app to a n-tier sollution, it's a bit easier.

Grtz.©

D.
0
 
jlymnAuthor Commented:
i tried the example from msdn, that helped a lot.

Now i can bind the properties to the database fields. The problem is that my new data class isn't visible on the datarepeater's datasource combo list.

This means that i can't get a list of the propertynames and datafields in the repeaterbindings tab (in the property pages of datarepeater)

I assume i need to do this programmatically instead & I see how toi create the object and set datarepeater's datasource to my class, but how do i match each propertyName to a DataField..?







0
 
Éric MoreauSenior .Net ConsultantCommented:
DataControl adds a little overhead. If you replace the datacontrol with a data source class, if strongly beleive that you will loose speed.
0
What does it mean to be "Always On"?

Is your cloud always on? With an Always On cloud you won't have to worry about downtime for maintenance or software application code updates, ensuring that your bottom line isn't affected.

 
jlymnAuthor Commented:
emoreau - thanks - maybe i should stick with what i've got..? It seems to work ok.

daffy - how will it help with maintainability, to use the dataclass? Is it worth the extra effort do you think?

0
 
daffyduck14milCommented:
Hi,

It depends on how large your project is. I can not even begin to imagine the work it will take if you have a 500+ table database (typical goverment database), and didn't do (most) things in a class or something and find out you missed one field name or need to add one later. Ack.. %)

Anyway, if it's small, stick with the ADO control, the class is just one layer less (no graphical control). Imho, it's most of the time not worth the extra effort, but it can come in handy if someone ever needs to work on your program. It's a tradeoff, like most things. Hmm, time to go home, I just started rambling....

Grtz.©

D.
0
 
Éric MoreauSenior .Net ConsultantCommented:
Are you aware that you can directly bind controls to a recordset using ADO?

Set text1.datasource = rstSomething
text1.datafield = "OneField"
0
 
Éric MoreauSenior .Net ConsultantCommented:
Any decisions yet?
0
 
jlymnAuthor Commented:
emoreau - I didnt realise you could bind directly without the datacontrol. I'll stick with it this time anyway. It seems easier to use with the datarepeater.

Daffy - Its a small project so i'm going to be lazy and stick with what i've got. Thanks for the input..

Points to daffy and 50 in dummy question for emoreau

0

Featured Post

Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now