Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Jan 2009 10:54 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Permalink for comment 343148
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
This is null and void on a few levels:
Great, except this has absolutely nothing to do with configuration of the application. It is about persistable settings and data that needs to be read and written by the application in a reasonably fluid way (short of using a database). App.config does not fit this use case and Microsoft will disown you if you try. If you'd read any of those pages you would have found that out.
You keep writing 'nothing to do with the registry' as if that will somehow magicallymake every .Net application ported to Mono Ok, but it doesn't as has been consistently pointed out in this thread, explain why Mono has had to engineer registry support in if .Net applications have 'nothing to do with the registry'. The above use case that I have described, I would hazard a very good guess, is exactly why.