[RESOLVED] My.Settings File
I'm looking for a way to specify the location for the User.config file that is used for storing the My.Settings object. It appears that this is not possible.
The problem for me is, I don't want to be responsible for creating several different files on the users computer that really have no use and are difficult to find and clean once an update is released. For most users, this is not a serious problem, as many will probably never update the software, and most will probably only go through a couple of updates. On my system, there are config files for every build of the application, and the same to a lesser extent will be true for my beta testers.
More troublesome is the fact that the settings get reset between versions.
This link http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...19&postcount=2 gives an example whereby the MySettings class can be modified to save a duplicate, perstistant settings file which is read and saved after the User.Config file. This solves the problem of persisting settings between versions, but still creates a mess of unusable files on the user's computer.
I can understand that MS wants to make sure that no two applications will use the same location for storing application data, but a simple [UserData]\[CompanyName]\[ApplicationName] for storing application data will probably suffice for 99.9999 percent of the legitimate applications in the world. Bogging a user's system down with erroneous files, no matter how small, is an unnecessary drain on system resources and a potential source of problems for the user. It's bad enough that most programs leave bits and pieces of themselves all over a user's system after deinstallation - this to me seems only to exaggerate this problem.
Is the only way to get around this problem to write a whole new Settings Class? Is there a way to change the location of the UserConfig file to a more friendly (and more predictable) location that I am not finding for myself? It would seem that having at least the OPTION to specify a location for the User.Config file would be OBVIOUS and easy to implement, so why did they leave this out?