Jeff and .NET

It's your absolute right to whine about someone's mistake, but it would be more constructive to go in and *fix* the error by providing a real example for the community.

You can do that using the MSDN Wiki beta:

http://msdnwiki.microsoft.com/en-us/mtpswiki/system.web.ui.datasourceview.delete.aspx

Ken

Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]

Fire the person that doesn't understand (semi-abstract) inheritance ... :-)

Read the documentatation again .. this is a base class, that's behaviour can (and is) overriden.  By default, delete is not supported by the base class .. but might be in any of the following derived classes ..

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.XmlDataSourceView

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.ReadOnlyDataSourceView (probably not in this one)

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.SiteMapDataSourceView

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.SqlDataSourceView

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.AccessDataSourceView

* System.Web.UI.WebControls.XmlDataSourceView

In fact, here is a bit of code from the SqlDataSourceView to prove it ..

Protected Overrides Function ExecuteDelete(ByVal keys As IDictionary, ByVal oldValues As IDictionary) As Integer

     If Not Me.CanDelete Then

           Throw New NotSupportedException(SR.GetString("SqlDataSourceView_DeleteNotSupported", New Object() { Me._owner.ID }))

     End If

     Dim connection1 As DbConnection = Me._owner.CreateConnection(Me._owner.ConnectionString)

     If (connection1 Is Nothing) Then

           Throw New InvalidOperationException(SR.GetString("SqlDataSourceView_CouldNotCreateConnection", New Object() { Me._owner.ID }))

     End If

     Dim text1 As String = Me.OldValuesParameterFormatString

     Dim command1 As DbCommand = Me._owner.CreateCommand(Me.DeleteCommand, connection1)

     Dim dictionary1 As IDictionary = Me.DeleteParameters.GetValues(Me._context, Me._owner)

     Me.AddParameters(command1, Me.DeleteParameters, dictionary1, oldValues, Nothing)

     Me.AddParameters(command1, Me.DeleteParameters, keys, Nothing, text1)

     If (Me.ConflictDetection = ConflictOptions.CompareAllValues) Then

           If ((oldValues Is Nothing) OrElse (oldValues.Count = 0)) Then

                 Throw New InvalidOperationException(SR.GetString("SqlDataSourceView_Pessimistic", New Object() { SR.GetString("DataSourceView_delete"), Me._owner.ID, "values" }))

           End If

           Me.AddParameters(command1, Me.DeleteParameters, oldValues, Nothing, text1)

     End If

     command1.CommandType = SqlDataSourceView.GetCommandType(Me.DeleteCommandType)

     Dim args1 As New SqlDataSourceCommandEventArgs(command1)

     Me.OnDeleting(args1)

     If args1.Cancel Then

           Return 0

     End If

     Me.ReplaceNullValues(command1)

     Return Me.ExecuteDbCommand(command1, DataSourceOperation.Delete)

End Function

Not new. I actually tried to report and go this answer: ----- Hello Sean, Thank you for waiting for our response. This is to inform you that we will not be able to make the immediate changes you have reported because the content is acquired by MSDN. We have forwarded the issue to the content owner for review and resolution on their end. You may want to visit the site from time to time to check for any development. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you. Should you have other MSDN concerns, please feel free to write back. ----- Puts some light on it :)

Jesus love him too, you should be the best writer ever can you give the list of tech Book you have published please.

Great idea. Lets fire anybody who ever made a mistake. That would leave exactly zero people with jobs.

Sorry, but I was pointing out that the documentation is fine. There is NO mistake, and NO error here. In the context of the example code, a read-only DataSource, a not supported exception is exactly what you would want to do, so this is a fully functional, working example. It states clearly that this is not a stand-alone piece of code. I don't see this as a mistake, and definitely not one that somebody should be "fired" for. If you're expecting examples of every possible use case for every method and code path, which is what you're really asking for "out of the box" from Microsoft, then you've got very high expectations. As for community spirit, you clearly didn't ask for a higher degree of excellence, you just blogged to the ASP.net community - "fire" the person who didn't think to write extra documentation (or more specifically, chose to document an example class that has behaviour that does not require 100% implementation). When asked to not just criticise but contribute to the community by the MVP, you criticised them too. You're entitled to do that, but it's unhelpful. If you think the documentation calls for a second example then request one OR, now you know how it works, add one. As an analogy .. Do you develop software that is 100% bug free after you've fully tested it and release it? No, never! Only an idiot would think/expect that. After release, it's only by people reporting bugs/errors TO YOU when they reach real world use, that you'll be able to find them. If everyone sat around and criticised, instead of reporting or assisting you with the problems, then the software industry, our community, would not last very long. Your call for somebody to be fired for the equivalent of leaving out one test case in a massive, collosus of an application, should seem ridiculous and is very unhelpful.

All that anger...

You against the world eh?

Conceptually: The datasourceview might be persisted into *anything*. There is no implicit default to show an example for, so they didn't choose one.

Pragmatically: They should just have shown a simple example using a SQL data source, like 90% of real world examples will.

Ultimately: A code example that throws NotSupportedException is frickin' hilarious.

The thing about firing people for single mistakes is that you usually end up firing a scapegoat who is less able to engage in the political wranglings.

I almost always share Jeff's feeling about the things he posts.

I understand the pain, but I disagree with the specific example used here.

While it is surely related to the specific things I search for in the doc, I find that this entry is average or above average in terms of content.

Unlike many entries I have come across, it has clearly had some human intervention rather than just being generated/inferred from the method name and signature.  (I find the naming of things good enough that most of the time the little extra bit from the xml comments is redundant)

It says that "This code example is part of a larger example provided for the DataSourceView class". I think there should be a link right there in that sentence to that larger sample. Yes, even if it is the just back to the DataSourceView class page), it would put those snippets into a logical context.

I do not think that an example using sql would be any better if it was not in the context of a larger sample.

Ken:

I have submitted small corrections to Msdn before and will do so in the future if I spot errors.

If I have to build up a prototype (which the client is paying for) to figure out how to use an API, that is ok.

To think that I would take the personal time to take the code (is it the client's code?) and reduce it to an instructional example is not very realistic.

If I the client wanted it and would be willing to pay me to do it, I would be glad to do it; but they aren't, so I won't.

Granted - the approach of "calling" for a firing may be a bit abrasive (though I suspect the author meant it to be exaggerated), the point should be well taken. Almost all of us are "new" at something as we extend ourselves into new areas, and have to dig into MSDN docs and can be frustrating. My first stop is often Google and not MSDN simply because I suspect that what I'll find in MSDN docs is a statement of the obvious, and not deeper knowledge such as performance related details.

But what really steams me about this community is the hostility and elitism, and "titles" such as MVP don't help - how about titles such as MHP - Most Helpful Person?

"I suspect that what I'll find in MSDN docs is a statement of the obvious, and not deeper knowledge "

Me too.

Fired might be a bit extreme...how about flogged.

MSDN....Their examples are wierd.

I am very new to dot net. everytime i check the msdn for some help, it leaves me even more confused.

I'd rather google.

Yes, I also usually google first.

And I also "get it."

As well as having a valid point, this original blog post was just a way of venting. You don't have to take expressive titles literally.

My last post seemed to rile up a few people, which is not entirely surprising since I used strong language

Seems like people got a little over-reactionary. Sometimes people have strong opinions, and when they are irritated, they say them in a strong manner. It's their opinion.

I'd better not post the link to my blog, if you think Jeff is a cranky person...

I just run into this while working on writing a DataSourceControl.  This documentation is still the same and still of very little use.  I'm sure I'll be able to hammer something out, but it would have been easier had they put some some of example of best practice.