|
Hi All,
sorry for my bad english.
I need your help for reading a driver name available in the "Device management" of O.S.
Example, I install an USB driver associated with an internal COM PORT assigned from O.S., and I need to find this COM PORT associated at this driver.
I reading all com port of O.S., but what's the right one?
Thanks a lot for any suggestion.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about getting the driver name, however using WMI class Win32_SerialPort one can obtain a lot of information, e.g. there are strings such as Caption, Description, DeviceID, Name. Not all of them are always present, however they should suffice to recognize the port you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Luc, I try this solution.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
First, sorry the subject title looks like an article name. 
I have a pdf document and has a button embedded using javascript. Is there a possible way i can develop a C Sharp application to click the button? Not me to click it
Wamuti: Any man can be an island, but islands to need water around them!
Edmund Burke: No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have a look around at C# PDF libraries like PDFSharp[^] and iTextSharp[^]. There are ones out there that will allow you to print PDF documents.
Furthermore, I think trying to click the JavaScript-embedded button from C# is the wrong way to look at this - why would you try and run JavaScript inside a PDF that is open in memory in a C# application, especially when the JavaScript is probably dependent on Adobe Acrobat's particular implementation of JavaScript and its API? Why not just print it with your C# code?
Do you get what I mean? I thought I would just add that to explain why I didn't tell you how to click the button. I'm not trying to shoot you down, just shed some light on my thought process
EDIT: Brainwave! You probably don't even need a PDF library if all you're trying to do is print a PDF. Take a loot at the Adobe Reader's command line reference. Have a look at this post on Stack Overflow[^]. It shows two ways of printing with Adobe from the command line.
In C# you can achieve this by using System.Diagnostics.Process[^] class. This link shows you examples of starting a process.
|
|
|
|
|
HELP, WHAT're the errors!!! ERROR - unsae
Error 1 Unsafe code may only appear if compiling with /unsafe C:\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\Unsafe\Unsafe\Program.cs 6 24 Unsafe
Error 2 Unsafe code may only appear if compiling with /unsafe C:\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\Unsafe\Unsafe\Program.cs 10 31 Unsafe
using System;
class Unsafe
{
unsafe static void SquarePtrParam(int *p)
{
*p *= *p;
}
unsafe public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int i = 5;
SquarePtrParam(&i);
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
The error is saying you must use the /unsafe switch to compile code that contains the unsafe keyword. Go to the properties of the project, under the build tab and look for the checkbox "Allow unsafe code"
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
You already posted this as a question in the Q&A. Please don't cross-post.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
hey guys..i added a Unique constraint to a column in my sql table and if the user tries to add an existing data it gives error like that
"Violation of UNIQUE KEY constraint 'ukc_cekilis_no'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.NumaraBilgileri'."
it is ok..but i want to show an error message like that in my program..how i can check if the data already exist
vemedya.com
|
|
|
|
|
You could catch that particular exception. You could use a stored procedure to do the insert that checks first and returns a value that tells you what happened. A third option would be to query before you do the insert, but that is inefficient as you are making two trips to the database instead of just one.
|
|
|
|
|
T M Gray wrote: You could catch that particular exception.
Exceptions are for unexpected events not for normal processing.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
If that were strictly true then there would be no throw method. There would also be no need for subclasses of Exception. If you know what type of Exception to expect then it isn't an unexpected event.
The answers I gave are factually correct. Your statement is a matter of philosophy or preference.
|
|
|
|
|
T M Gray wrote: Your statement is a matter of philosophy or preference.
No, established best practices, architecture guidance and experience.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/seyhszts.aspx[^]
"Know when to set up a try/catch block. For example, you can programmatically check for a condition that is likely to occur without using exception handling. In other situations, using exception handling to catch an error condition is appropriate."
In this case the unique key violation is a known condition that may occur and can be tested for.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
But do you know why it is bad practice? My point is that you shouldn't do something a certain way just because someone says so (even if that someone is Microsoft). Nothing in that article explains why you shouldn't use exceptions for program flow. If you had posted this[^] instead, that at least gives reasons related to performance.
There should be real reasons behind why you code a certain way. If the original poster is not strong in SQL and has no method of source control for database schema then using the stored procedure solution makes it less maintainable. That probably outweighs the performance impact of the Exception use in one method of a small application.
Blindly following a "best practice" without considering the specific situation is a bad idea. Consider this case[^] where it is a choice of one exception or 4 database roundtrips.
Avoid dogma in code.
|
|
|
|
|
T M Gray wrote: But do you know why it is bad practice?
Do you?
Basically your arguments have no merit and are the ramblings of one uneducated in Software Engineering or Software Design principles. Further debate would solve no purpose against such an unprepared person.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
So educate us. Tell us WHY. I laid out facts. You offered no solution to the original poster. You give no explanations. Try and contribute something useful rather than personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no hard and fast rules. But I agree with Mark. If a known condition can be tested for without relying on an exception, it's a best course of action. You cannot reliably know the behavior of a system as that system and its dependants rely on a failure mode, especially when any parts of the system get upgraded in the future. What may be an exception in one version may NOT be in the next.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: If a known condition can be tested for without relying on an exception, it's a best course of action.
Well, I wouldn't say that's always true. Imagine if TryParse didn't exist. Would you rather Try/Catch a Parse or re-implement a version of parse that returns a bool if the string is invalid? Given the complexity of number formats (e.g., scientific notation), I would just do a Try/Catch. I guess this can be generalized as:
If a known condition is exceptionally complex to test for, then just use exception handling to test if it's valid.
Here's another example. I built a tool that allows the user to enter a regular expression to match against some data. Rather than validate that the regular expression is valid, I just used Try/Catch to catch exceptions thrown by invalid exceptions. I mean I COULD first check if the regular expression is valid, but it would be exceedingly complex and a waste of time when the test for validity already exists in the form of exception handling.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: Imagine if TryParse didn't exist.
It didn't at one point. I said if it could be tested for. Obviously, you can't test for every possible failure in a Parse method. It's not practical since there are just too many possibilities. But, you can test for a single known condition, like a duplicate key.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: In this case the unique key violation is a known condition that may occur and can be tested for.
Every constraint defined on that table is known. Data-types and length, custom constraints, keys. A little further down on the page you're quoting from;
Microsoft wrote: The method you choose depends on how often you expect the event to occur. If the event is truly exceptional and is an error (such as an unexpected end-of-file), using exception handling is better because less code is executed in the normal case.
It becomes philosophy again when you try to define "truly exceptional".
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: In this case the unique key violation is a known condition
Which the database will check anyway; so why check it twice or more? You're just slowing things down needlessly. Especially considering that the internal check by the database is likely to be the quickest.
|
|
|
|
|
Not slowing it down. If you can't account for it otherwise, such as not applying an unique index on a field that may not be unique, then certainly the processing can, and should, be done at the database. If the key already exists return something like false not just let the exception be thrown.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: Not slowing it down.
Yes, slowing it down.
<Whoops, I hit post prematurely>
GUI.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
BL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
API.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
DAL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
SP.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
DB.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist?
How many times are you going to check the same darn thing when no problem exists? A duplicate key is an exceptional situation, whether you can test it or not.
Consider database round-trips to be very expensive.
</Whoops, I hit post prematurely>
Mark Nischalke wrote: If the key already exists return something like false
How do I know false means duplicate rather than timeout or a referential integrity violation?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
