|
I don't want a "simple table like from Excel" ... ?
You can "style" Excel sheets / tables any way you want. There are also "thousands" of templates available.
You can then "save as" HTML.
That is "simple"; beyond that, you can have Excel generate tabs; navigation; etc.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
We need more info. Do you mean a table in a database that will store information? Or do you mean a table of information printed out on a web page?
If you mean the latter, then yes, WordPress has tools to add images, tables, fields, etc. It is where you create your pages. I don't have access so I can't walk you through it but it should be pretty easy to find.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I thinks that unity containers should check child containers instead of the parent container.
That way, during registration after the manager registers global modules, it can pass a child container to every module to register it's services.
Then resolution can then be done using the parent container after it's wrapped in an IServiceLocator.
What do you think?
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you be wrapping the parent container in a service locator? You're providing IoC and then subverting it by using service location.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
'Cause in resolution you don't want modules changing other modules services.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about the child container part - I got that. It was the use of the service locator I was questioning.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
IServiceLocator does not have a RegisterService(). So all modules will be able to use the services registered on the parent container (and child containers) without being able to block the configuration of child containers by adding services to the parent.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, sorry - that didn't make much sense to me. Could you put a practical example here highlighting what you're trying to solve. BTW - don't forget - just because you have registered a child container in your module, this doesn't mean that the parent IUnityContainer is no longer available.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
OK!
// Registration phase
1. Manager creates a container and registers modules.
2. Manager passes a child container to every module to registers it's services.
3. Module1 register LegitLogger as ILogger.
// Resolution
4. Manager passes root container to every module to able to find services added by other modules (on child containers).
Without IServiceLocator wrap, Module2 can register DummyLogger as ILoger on the root container so that LegitLogger will never be found (child containers will not be searched).
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a touch confused as to why you think you need to pass the child container in. Remember that unity looks for modules that implement IModule - so, create a base module class that takes the parent container and creates a child container internally. Something like this:
public abstract class ModuleBase : IModule
{
public IUnityContainer ParentContainer { get; private set; }
public ModuleBase(IUnityContainer container)
{
ParentContainer = container;
Container = container.CreateChildContainer();
}
}With that, you have a segregated module architecture that will allow you to set up the interfaces how you like. I would tend to create a fluent architecture here to simplify the registration in here, but that's just me.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
In that setup the following code is possible:
public class DefectiveModuel : IModule
{
public DefectiveModuel(IUnityContainer container)
{
}
}
The setup I'm going for is more like:
public interface IModule
{
void RegisterServices(IUnityContainer container);
void Init(IUnityContainer container);
}
public class Manager
{
public void Init(IUnityContainer root)
{
Modules.Foreach(m => m.RegisterServices(root.CreateChildContainer()));
Modules.Foreach(m => m.Init(root.Wrap()));
}
}
So modules will only be able to configure there child container.
However, they will be able to use the root container to access services added by other modules on child containers under root.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
modified 15-Feb-17 10:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, because the parent container is still available to you, there's nothing stopping the inner services from trashing the root container - all they need to do is get the Parent from your IUnityContainer; you're not going to be able to prevent that.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
 Just noticed.
Edit: However, It's still hard to predict the order in which the modules will be called.
Edit2: If there was an IServiceRegister interface. Then we could use it to wrap the container during registration.
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible" Arthur C. Clarke
-- modified 15-Feb-17 12:07pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have handled this, in the past, by hiding the module registration. This works by putting a proxy registrar in place and then exposing this through the module registration instead. At some point, I'll put out an article describing how I did this (part of the idea behind this is that this approach makes it easier to swap IoC containers around).
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
 Good idea.
PS: I just thought of the idea of having to replace all those IUnityContainer references. That is one scary thought.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible" Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
As for what I'm trying to solve.
In the current setup a module can only use it's services and the services registered on the root container, So modules cannot share there services.
We could pass the root container to modules so they can register there services in a single pool, but then a module can intercept another module's services.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
aboubkr90 wrote: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Please do not apply that philosophy to daily traffic.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing i don't have a license. 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible" Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Im working on an old 9-10 year product that was written using Visual Studio 2005, dot net 2.0. I have upgraded the SQL backend database to 2012. This is a ASP.NET Web Site project. It also comes with its own MSI installer and some Windows Forms Utilities. The ASP.NET pages are looking very old, there are roughly 60-80 or so pages. It currenlty allows certain menu's / pages to be visable via XML configuration. I want to improve the look and feel dramatically. Since VS2005 is no longer supported and will not install on Win10 I have started to migrate to VS2015. The old asp.net pages use aso:Table, asp:TableRow, asp.TableCell but I want to migrate to some type of template engine. My own research suggest moving product to asp.net MVC, this will probably require a rewrite. Does anyone have any suggestions where to go with this task. Many thanks..
|
|
|
|
|
You essentially have two options:
1) Evolve
- Open the solution in VS2015 to upgrade the file format;
- Optionally upgrade the project to the latest version of .NET, and deal with any breaking changes[^] that apply;
- Optionally convert the "web site" project to a "web application" project[^];
- Start making incremental changes to the layout and styles;
2) Rewrite
- Rewrite the entire project in ASP.NET MVC or ASP.NET Core
- Choose between ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core | Microsoft Docs[^]
If you're just looking to make a few changes to the styles, option 1 is probably the way to go. WebForms isn't going to stop working any time soon. And it's possible to add MVC and WebAPI features to an existing WebForms project, so you could rewrite the site one part at a time if necessary.
But if you want to completely rewrite the site, MVC or Core is the way to go. Just be aware that it could be a very big job. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
We all know programming is problem solving, and often the ability to problem solve effectively is one of the most desired traits in a professional programmer. However, compared with syntax books and tutorials, there are surprisingly few articles on steps used to problem-solve any programming-related task.
Give us a list of general steps that work for you to solve programming problems. Here is mine. Feel free to critique it as well:
1. Determine the problem.
2. Break the problem down into smaller problems
3. Prioritize the smaller problems
5. Think of solutions for the first problem on the list and begin working
7. Review code and make it better
I often hear in interviews that people are "Trying to see how the candidate solves/approaches problems," so clearly this is a big one. Also, please note that the scope of this post is specifically smaller problems such as basic algorithms used in programming tests. Not talking about system architecture here. Any tips appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
To Solve any problem whether smaller or bigger a Programmer should follow The software development life cycle (SDLC) ,Software Development Process.
Which includes many steps like:
Review the problem(Reproduce the problem),
then Investigate the reason behind it,
design how to solve the problem ,
check effected areas,
codding ,
Testing
|
|
|
|
|
TheOnlyRealTodd wrote: there are surprisingly few articles on steps used to problem-solve any programming-related task
..because it would be the same abstraction as you described. It is also not limited to programming, it is a basic pattern that most people follow.
Diagnose
Prioritize
Plan
Implement
Review
Outside of that, the only other approach you could try is using gasoline, a lighter, and threathening the problem.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Without any "artifacts" (i.e. deliverables), the "process" is useless; i.e.
1) Scope (Context diagram)
2) Problem Definition (doc)
3) Preliminary analysis (level 0 DFD; UML; whatever)
4) - Current physical
5) - Current logical
6) Design
7) - New logical
8) - New physical
etc.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
So I pretty much exclusively write windows drivers, kernel mode, and its a very demanding environment. Lost of issues with concurrency, and something you user mode guys wont have come across, priority. Your code can be called at PASSIVE_LEVEL, DISPATCH_LEVEL, or, if you have an interrupt, some kind of DIRQL.
Now when you are at elevated levels, you cant touch pageable code or data, it has to be non paged, else you risk a page fault crash. You also cant wait or sleep, or allocate non paged memory at elevated levels.
So something I use, architecturally a lot, is a function call queue, and a thread, which runs at PASSIVE_LEVEL (thats real time priority by the way) to empty the queue.
Because only one function at a time is run by the thread, when taken off the queue, data cant be touched at the same time, and because the thread runs at passive level it can wait, and can call any function, or use any data.
And its very easy to use. Any event that occurs, just save the relevant data in a context, and queue it.
The whole functioning of the driver becomes very relaxed. Almost nothing needs locking, and almost all code runs at a low priority. Its a very good solution to highly complex environments and makes for aq very good product.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
