|
jdunlap,
do u hold the fluid UI project?
regards,
jim
|
|
|
|
|
zecodela wrote:
do u hold the fluid UI project?
Yes, I am the project lead. 
|
|
|
|
|
I use the bitmap class, with the pixels property.... But I think the windows api code is better
Greetings....
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any control in C# which similar like Outlook time schedule table or GravityBox control in VB 6 ?
I want to visualise a group of appointment.
An idea or link to source code are welcome.
Thx for your sharing, I will put your credit in my software.
"Courage choose who will follow, Fate choose who will lead" - Lord Gunner, Septerra Core
|
|
|
|
|
I see you can set the focus to a control with controlname.focus for a Window form, but I don't see how you can do this for a webform. Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC you have to use client-side Javascript, which you can generate on-the-fly if necessary.
"Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
FLUID UI Toolkit
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I like to bind a collection to a listview-control.
So the listview-control must behave like a datagrid.
Is there somebody who has some code (C#) to do that or to extends the listview-control?
Thanks,
Bom
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there:
Im going to insert an Image into MS-SQL Server 2000, could anyone give me a sample!
I use the code that I've useing for other tables but I guess I need something more for inserting Images to Database!
Bye the way Im using DataSet & DataAdapter.
Any help is appreciated.
Always ,
Hovik Melkomian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im really thankfull for ur help & fast reply!!!
please give me time to see that, I hope I can find my answer there.
Always,
Hovik.
|
|
|
|
|
u helped much dear! tnx;)
Always,
Hovik.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any free image processing library available for C#?? kindly tell me.
Working with pixels in C# using GID+ is very slow, so unsafe mode is usually preferred. Is there any way to work with safe mode and get good performance for pixel acess?
Muhammad Shoaib Khan
http://geocities.com/lansolution
|
|
|
|
|
Why not use unsafe mode?  There's nothing wrong with it. 
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
FLUID UI Toolkit
|
|
|
|
|
How to make an window application run one time?
I mean that an application just have 1 instance at a point of time.
Like in VB:
If (App.PrevInstance) Then
End
End If
thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to serialize an array of type "Person". The objects stored in the array are all derived from person and are stored like this:
Person[0] = Player
Person[1] = Coach
Person[2] = Player
The problem is I get the following error:
"An unhandled exception of type 'System.InvalidOperationException' occurred in system.xml.dll
Additional information: There was an error generating the XML document."
I'm using this line to initialize the Serializer: XmlSerializer y = new XmlSerializer(the_Game.PEOPLE.GetType());
It works fine when I use a BinaryFormatter, but not with the XmlSerializer. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
[rant]
The XmlSerializer has a bad name because it isn't a true serializer. More of a helper class that can spit basic data out as XML. There are two major downfalls with it.
1) It doesn't support inheritence very well. The type of the object declared is the type that gets serialized. Using your example of an array of Person objects (where Player, Coach, and Referree all inherit from Person) the XML that XmlSerializer (XS) spits out will only have the attributes that the Person object exposes.
2) It is only good for holding public data. Say your Person class has some private variables used to maintain state of some sort, for example a Position variable. This variable isn't exposed as a property because it is only of use to the methods within the Person class not its derivatives. This extra state variable isn't serialized by XS because it only searches for public properties and variables (maybe even protected ones, I can't remember).
On top of that all of the data types used by your class publicly, as well as the types they use, etc must all conform to certain restrictions: have a public, parameterless constructor; all public properties that are to be serialized need to be both read and write; and lastly, not use the IDictionary interface publicly this includes use of IDictionary and any class which implements it (XS specifically checks for it).
Unlike the XmlSerializer, the BinaryFormatter and the SoapFormatter are true serializers able to store all the information within an object.
[/rant]
That said, you should check that your Person class has a public parameterless constructor, and that it is not an abstract class (another restriction).
James
"then when you go to bed...wait, you dont do that do you....ok....when you plug into the 'hive mind' to charge yourself, ill hack into your head"
Nnamdi Onyeyiri over MSN
|
|
|
|
|
All the classes have a parameterless constructor that calls the base constructor(which is parameterless). I think I'll stick with the BinaryFormatter then. It would be nice to output the data as XML, but it's not a necessity.
Thanks, and how did you know I had a Referee class?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how Soapsuds ties in with Remoting. Quote:
"the idea behind SoapSuds is to run it on an existing assembly to extract the metadata for all MarshalByRefObject so that you don't need to deploy the complete implementation assembly to your clients."
>> Why'd you need to do that? I mean, if you don't want to distribute implementation, just distribute "interface" assembly. I don't see any need for soapsuds (what am i missing here?)
IngoRammer prefer not to use it because Soapsuds does not accomodate for serializable fields:
http://www.ingorammer.com/RemotingFAQ/SoapSudsOrInterfaces.html
Thanks!
norm
|
|
|
|
|
norm wrote:
Why'd you need to do that? I mean, if you don't want to distribute implementation, just distribute "interface" assembly. I don't see any need for soapsuds (what am i missing here?)
The "interface" assembly method stops you from doing a few things that you could want to do from remoting. If you have Ingo's book I think it was chapters 3 and 6 that included most of the reasons.
It's been a while since I've played with remoting (I got half way through chapter 6  ). But if I remember correctly, if you go the interface route you can't use server activated objects because, of course, you can't create an instance of an interface. It also stops you from making heavy use of configuration files for configuration and deploying of your server (or client).
Hope that gives you some ideas,
James
"then when you go to bed...wait, you dont do that do you....ok....when you plug into the 'hive mind' to charge yourself, ill hack into your head"
Nnamdi Onyeyiri over MSN
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, first of all. Here's what I think.
If you adopts the interface-route, you can't use "new" keyword or instantiate a server object on client side - but you can still gain access to server object's state.
But I still don't see why we need to use Soapsuds (to generate a transparent proxy) even if we don't use "interface" - just add reference to the original assembly where the remotable class reside. Why bother generating another assembly with Soapsuds?
norm
|
|
|
|
|
norm wrote:
But I still don't see why we need to use Soapsuds (to generate a transparent proxy) even if we don't use "interface" - just add reference to the original assembly where the remotable class reside. Why bother generating another assembly with Soapsuds?
Here is where its starts to get murky for me; the only reason I can think of is that by adding a reference to the assembly housing your remoted class you then have to ship your remoted class to the end user. This is usually not desireable because it defeats one purpose of using remoting, keeping some of your implementation on another server where the end user can't decompile it.
If, however, you generate a proxy class with SoapSuds then you don't have to distribute your implementation of the remotable class.
James
"then when you go to bed...wait, you dont do that do you....ok....when you plug into the 'hive mind' to charge yourself, ill hack into your head"
Nnamdi Onyeyiri over MSN
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that defeats the purpose - your remote object still resides on the remote server.
Yes, you will need to either ship your assembly to your end user or put the assembly in webroot or designated folder. But still, the client just extract type information from it. The actual object still runs on a process on remote server machine: For example, it can still access database and other resources on the remote server (client my rely on the server object to gain access to certain resources residing on remote server).
norm
|
|
|
|
|
I have drwan something on a picturebox. How can I give priting capability to user? Firstly showing a print preview is a good idea! Is there any straightforward solution?
Don't forget, that's Persian Gulf not Arabian gulf!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
