|
I think it refers to Rational XDE.NET, search on www.rational.com
it's a pretty powerful tool from rational.
You can download a trial version.
Andres Manggini.
Buenos Aires - Argentina.
|
|
|
|
|
I like it too. But I didn't find document about it. I have just known Rational XDE Professional has been designed by ground-up for developers. XDE stands by eXtended Development Environment.Its unique, tightly integrated support for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET allows Rational XDE Professional users to work in a single environment, avoiding the need to switch between many different, non-integrated tools.
If you know more and you have books, links, .... about XDE.NET, can you send me?
Thanks a lot.
Only Love!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't have any documentation, just the trial. You can see a few demos on their site.
Andres Manggini.
Buenos Aires - Argentina.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
all
I have create a new asp.net web service ,and I put the whole solution in the /wwwroot/webserive.
In another window application, I use "add new web reference " to import the web service .I input "http://localhost/webservice/helloworld.asmx" in the
address line,and then the system display a dialog to prompt
me to download the helloworld.asmx file to my own local machine. So I want to know why? Could I only use the web service on the condition that I download it to my own machine?
Your advaced help will be appreciated!
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
I just tried adding a reference to an arbitrary webservice and it didn't prompt to save anything. Perhaps its just because its a local service?
James
Sonork: Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
all
Why there is only asp.net web service template in my
visual c# projects and no web service template which is
reffered in most articles?
Is the two just the same?
And I find that my visual studio.net differs from others.
I want to know whether it is just the version problem or not.And if so,then the finall version is...?
regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Bliven wrote:
Why there is only asp.net web service template in my
visual c# projects and no web service template which is
reffered in most articles?
If you are creating a web service that others will use (in .NET jargon others will consume your web service) you do it via an ASP.NET Web Service template.
Consuming a webservice is as easy as right click on your project then choosing "Add Web Reference" fill out the information it asks about your webserivce and you've got it made 
Bliven wrote:
And I find that my visual studio.net differs from others.
I want to know whether it is just the version problem or not.And if so,then the finall version is...?
Visual Studio 7.0 Professional (Microsoft Development Environment 2002) version is: 7.0.9466
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 version is : 1.0.3705
HTH,
James
Sonork: Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
Is it advisable to start coding the '.net' way or remain using
the Win32 api / mfc? Will .net objects replace win32 as the native api?
|
|
|
|
|
UGenn wrote:
Will .net objects replace win32 as the native api?
Eventually I think they will. Once the .net framework is standard with all copies of Windows, it makes sense for developers to use the higher level objects to write apps.
However I will be writing Win32/MFC/ATL apps for quiet a while. It all depends on what my customers want. I know MFC and Win32 very well, changing now would only slow down my development time and introduce new bugs into my systems.
I will change eventually but at the moment I've got too much invested in the existing technologies.
Michael 
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, it would be a huge mistake for someone wanting to be a professional programmer to pin their future on a technology like .net. Web "applications" and other kinds of form based programming are going to continue to evolve into ever simpler methodologies. At the same time, every school in the country is trying their best to produce new generations of "computer literate" kids, which means that ever larger percentages of them are going to have the basic skills needed to put together web pages and "form based" applications (ie. a dialog box populated with some data bound controls) with these ever more simplified technologies. Heck, most of my son's 13 year old friends can already build fairly sophisticated web pages. This trend is only going to continue. Soon, doing that kind of stuff is going to be considered a basic secretarial level skill set.
However, no language is ever going to refine away the complexity inherent in a large application. A programmer is going to need to bring extensive knowledgeability of some kind of C/C++ level skills to the table to get a big job done. C# might replace C++ in this role, but I very much doubt it. MFC may evolve away or be replaced by something else, but I think it is going to be around for a long while yet, because dispite all of its flaws, it remains the most practical method of cobbling a large scale application together quickly in a windows environment.
"There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
|
|
|
|
|
you seem to have gone off a different tangent. the original pt is not about c++ but rather the relevance of the win32 api in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. I'll try again. I am saying that a basic knowledge of win32 (with C++ or not) will remain important for serious windows programmers. .net is only in its infancy and, if it is successful, will continue to evolve in the direction of making simple programming tasks more quick and efficient. Which is a good thing. But it will not change the fundamental nature of programming. You *will* continue to need a good understanding of what is going on at the lowest levels in order to successfully tackle large scale projects in the future just as you have done in the past. I am also saying that if you commit yourself to a .Net view of the world, than you are going to be forced to compete against an ever growing number of people who are going to possess an ever more significant portion of your skill set. I certainly feel as though that is Microsoft's goal with this technology. Therefore, my point is that .Net is important, but a win32 oriented skill set (or a basic knowledge of any lower level OS api) remains more than relevant, it is essential. If that is not true, then we are all in deep do-do.
"There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
|
|
|
|
|
Can I use .NET platform on win98 and NT too?
Mazy
"So,so you think you can tell,
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skies from pain,...
How I wish,how I wish you were here."
Wish You Were Here-Pink Floyd-1975
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
.NET is available for NT4, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2K, WinXP Home, and WinXP Pro.
.NET development is available for Win2K and WinXP Pro, it might also be possible with NT4 but I'm not positive.
ASP.NET hosting can be done with Win2K and WinXP Pro.
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
Let me make it clear for myself:
James T. Johnson wrote:
.NET is available for NT4, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2K, WinXP Home, and WinXP Pro.
It means I can run my applications in those OS.
James T. Johnson wrote:
.NET development is available for Win2K and WinXP Pro, it might also be possible with NT4 but I'm not positive.
This means I can write for example C# or VB.NET codes only in those one.
James T. Johnson wrote:
ASP.NET hosting can be done with Win2K and WinXP Pro.
I know this one.;)
Mazy
"So,so you think you can tell,
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skies from pain,...
How I wish,how I wish you were here."
Wish You Were Here-Pink Floyd-1975
|
|
|
|
|
Correct
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
Mazdak wrote:
James T. Johnson wrote:
.NET development is available for Win2K and WinXP Pro, it might also be possible with NT4 but I'm not positive.
This means I can write for example C# or VB.NET codes only in those one.
Yes and no.
technically... you can write C# and VB.net code on any system that has a comiler that can produce IL from C# or VB.net. if you go check out www.go-mono.com, you'll see that you can actually write C# code on linux, compile it there, and copy the dlls to windows and they'll work. ( not quite there yet, but that's the goal )
however... practically... you'd be best served with NT/2K/XP because that's the only platforms on which the Microsoft SDK and Visual Studio.net will install.
|
|
|
|
|
I have just started to get my feet wet with .NET (C#) and I just have one question so far...
Whose cruel joke was it to make the Left, Top, Right, and Bottom properties of the Rectangle Object READ-ONLY! 
Yes, I know the X, Y, Width, and Height are writable, but it doesn't do me much good when I am porting some of my C/C++ drawing code that doesn't think in those terms.
Now that I have that of my chest, I feel much better.
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
|
To make your transition easier could you just create your own rectangle class that falls back on the System.Drawing.Rectangle class when needed?
If you got really enterprising you could write an implicit operator so it would cast to a S.D.R silently (for using in GDI+ for example).
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
Good Idea and something I thought about myself.
Although, the code that I am working with at the moment does *allot* of small rectangle adjustments during the drawing and I am a bit worried about what the performance is going to look like under .NET.
I am currently starting to re-think things, and either I am going to change the drawing logic (I doubt) and/or, to fall back and to code up a rectangle variant that allows L,T,R,B adjustments and translate those into X,Y,W,H adjustments *auto-magically*.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
I have a C++ method in a component that expects a pointer
to a long as one of its parameters (ie. String*, long*,
long, long). When I try to use this method from VB, the
compiler gives me error "BC30657 'method' has a return
type that is not supported or parameter types that are not
supported". I've narrowed it down to the second
parameter. VB has no problem with the other "longs". It
appears that the pointer to the long is the problem. If I
define it as an Int32*, VB is happy. I'd like to be able
to define it as long* so I don't have to re-write some of
the C++ code. Does anyone know what's happening here? Is
there a work around?
Thanks for any help...
|
|
|
|
|
i'm going to assume you mean vb.net
i'm no c++ guy or vb.net guy ( c# is my cup of tea ), but i'm thinking it is because c++'s "long" is not marshaling correctly over to the managed/clr world. what is a "long"? Int32? Int64?
Since it is a pointer to a long... maybe it should be specified as an IntPtr?
But really... if you are planning on making these things public in a managed environment, you should stick to using types which are CTS compliant... and I believe a pointer to a long... isn't
|
|
|
|
|
Andy:
Thanks for the reply. The problem, as I see it, is that .NET does not know how to resolve the "long*" parameter. It has no problem with the other native C++ types (ie. long, int, etc.). It appears to have problems with pointers to these types. I've verified this by looking at the assembly manifest. It shows pointer syntax for the "long*" parameter. For other parameters that are pointers to CTS types, it shows them as references. The work around appears to be that you can only use CTS types anywhere a pointer to a native C++ type is expected. I'm not sure if this a failing of VB.NET, or, .NET in general.
|
|
|
|
|
well...
I wouldn't call it a "failing" per se.
The CTS defines a LCD of Types that languages must support to be .net compliant. using public variables not CTS compliant WILL result in cross-language problems.
Would you call it a "failing" of C++ if it failed to automagically recognize some arbitrary datatype of some other language that targets the clr? I wouldn't. I'd tell the person using that data type in a public interface to wrap up his language's idiosyncracies in a CTS compliant interface.
The reason the clr isn't having a problem with the other non-pointer datatypes nor pointers to reference types, is because there are direct CTS equivalents. A pointer to a Value Type is implemented as a IntPtr, I believe. check out the docs on it here.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been given the task of coming up with a proposal for our .NET strategy. Does anyone know of a place where I can get detailed information comparing C# and VC++.NET, in particular we need to know which language we should default to so that we
a) keep up with the industry
b) get the results we need in the quickest possible time
Development is currently (in the main) in VC++6 with MFC, so VC++.NET seems like the obvious choice to me, but with all the talk of C# I'm really struggling to know which way to turn, any ideas folks? What would you default to and why? 
Dylan Kenneally
London,UK
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
