Im looking to add a web.config (or app.config) so that i can have different settings (e.g. DEV build vs RELEASE build, for instance).
Can i simply add a .config file and expect to read from it?
I noticed that there is also an option to add a appsettings.json (App Settings File).
Which one of these should i be using for Blazor Client app (hosted via Asp.net)?
Thanks
Updates
Based on the following thread, i might just go with a settings
file on the Server side and feeding it to the Client via API.
Here is another reference for appsettings.json vs web.config
I was able to find a more concrete example int this article.
I believe you can use appsettings.Development.json and appsettings.json
Hope this helps...
Like this(this is asp.net web The program):
While web.config transforms are still an option, Asp.Net Core seems to be moving away from them for application-level configuration and instead using things like environment variables and config.json files.
For the JSON configuration file option, you are able to create multiple JSON files for each environment, and use an environment variable at runtime to determine which file is loaded. More information can be found here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/configuration
My client insists not to store prone-to-change configuration settings in the Web.Config file for our webservice (WCF). His reasoning is that he will have to deploy the application every time he wants to change this or that setting in the configuration file. He, then, told me to store this configuration information in the database because, he says, that way one can change it whenever one needs without re-deploying the whole application, and because it is a more central place if we ever need to have more than one instance of the service running.
Of course I find this argument and reasoning plainly wrong. However, I would like to provide him with clear evidence in that he his mistaken. Can anyone please point me out a source or two I may site to show him that changes in Web.Config are automatically propagated to the runtime and that he doesn't need to do any kind of re-deployment?
Straight from MSDN on ASP.NET Configuration.
ASP.NET Configuration Overview
ASP.NET detects any changes to the configuration files and then
automatically applies those changes to the affected applications,
restarting the applications in most cases.
See How to: Transform Web.config When Deploying a Web Application Project
Has any put much thought into this? Personally, I think managing endpoints in configuration files are a pain. Are there any pros/cons to doing one over the other?
Only points in favour of configuration files from me.
Managing endpoints in configuration files mean that you don't have to update your application if (or perhaps I should say when) the endpoints change.
You can also have several instances of the application running with different endpoints.
I tend to like the config approach myself too, other than the config file can get pretty big.
The one thing I have noticed with WCF configuration is that there is a lot of stuff that you can do from code that you can't do in XML config without adding your own custom extensions. In other words, doing config in code will allow more flexibility, of course you could also just code your own extensions and use those from configuration.
However, do note that there is what I would consider a 'bug' in Visual Studio that if you start making your own extensions and including them in XML, then VS won't like your config file any more and will tag them as errors, and then if you try to add a new service through the wizards, it will fail to add the endpoint to the configuration.
This is sort of a followup to my own answer:
After months of having everything in xml configuration, I'm changing everything to construct the endpoints and bindings in code. I found a really good case for having it in code;
When you want to have a deployable / sharable .dll that contains WCF clients.
So for example if you have a CommonClients.dll that contains all your WCF interfaces and contracts to communicate with some remote server, then you don't want to also say "here is 100 lines of xml that you also have to drop into your app.config for every client to make it work". Having it all constructed in code works out much better in this case.
There is also a "feature" of .NET 3.5 where if you have some wcf extensions, you have to specify the fully qualified assembly name. This means that if your assembly containing the extensions changes the version nnumber, you have to go change the assembly name in the config file too. It is supposedly fixed in .NET 4 to use a short assembly name and not require the full name.
Offhand, an endpoint in a config file doesn't need to be recompiled when it's changed. This also means that you just need to update your config file when moving an application from Development to UAT to Production.
If your just coding something for your own use at home, then there's no real difference. However in a business environment, having the enpoint defined in your config file saves all sorts of headaches.
When using an app.config, your application does not need to be recompiled to adjust to a change. Also it can be resused in multiple situations with the exact same code. Finally, hardcoding your endpoints (or anything subject to change) is poor coding practice. Don't fear the configuration file, it's declarative programming. You say, "I want to use this endpoint." and it does the work for you.
I generally do programmatic configuration, as I don't want to expose my applications internal structure the the user. The only thing I keep configurable is service address, but even this I keep in userSettings section, not system.ServiceModel.
I prefer and recommend the configuration file approach. It offeres a lot of flexibility by allowing to make change to your server without the need to recompile the applcation.
If you need security, you can encrypt the config file.
The biggest worry with plain config files could be that it can be accidentally (or on purpose) modified by the end user causing your app to crash. To overcome this you could make some tests in code to check the configuration is ok in the config file and if not, initialize it programatically to some defaults. I presented how you could do that in another answer to this question.
It's just a question of how much flexibility you need.
Usually I prefer the config file approach.
Check out the .NET StockTrader app. It uses a repository to store config data and has a separate app to manage the configuration. The setup and structure is pretty advanced and there's a fair bit of head scratching for anyone like me that only has the basics of WCF configuration so far, but I would say it's worth a look.
I have a Windows application in .Net 2.0 that uses several levels of configuration files. For reasons out of my control, the application consists of a Windows app (.exe) project and several DLLs, each of which has its own app.config file.
I have successfully figured out how to read the config file for each DLL, using (in C#)
ConfigurationManager.OpenMappedExeConfiguration("my DLL's config file path", ConfigurationUserLevel.None);
This works just fine - I can confirm that I get a Configuration object from this method when pointed to the file path name of my DLL's configuration file ("foo.dll.config"). However, when I try to access a custom configuration section, I get an exception saying that the data type for my custom configuration section cannot be found.
What else do I need to do to get the typing information available to my code when loading a configuration file in this manner?
It's unfortunate but true: the way to handle this is to copy the configuration from the .dll.config files into the applications' config file. The only exception has something to do with the Settings system used in Windows Forms. I think that does the OpenMappedConfiguration for you, but I'm not sure.
I've never known why they didn't unify this in .NET 2.0 and solve the problem. Maybe I should ask.
Earlier in the day, I asked a question like this as relates to WCF, in the Oslo Forum on MSDN (http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/oslo/thread/c93ee7f3-4f9b-4044-b1f0-43ad72fb508d). As I was searching for a blog post or some other answer (as I said above, "maybe I should ask"), the answer to my Forum post arrived.
Long story short, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the answer is: they didn't fix this in .NET 2.0 because they were waiting for Oslo to solve the problem.
Without trying to avoid downvotes by making sense out of that, I'll just mention: Oslo will encourage models of applications and application components to be stored in a central repository. That will include models of per-instance configuration. The theory is that all such data would be stored in a single repository (at least per-system). So, no more question of where the configuration file is located it's all in one place. No more question of finding the assembly containing the configuration section metadata - the metadata is stored in the repository along with the configuration data.
Ask me tomorrow, and I may feel differently, but right now, I may be picking up the Oslo religion...