|
Pankaj - Joshi wrote: I'm surprised the link is not opening properly in Mozilla...
Here's the vanilla[^] version of the link.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Any other idea to get big data over the web in batches...?
Regards
Pankaj Joshi
If you want to shape your dreams into reality, please wake-up...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am writing a Pocket-PC application in C#. This application requires data synchronisation, so I thought... nothing easier than that.. and developed a webservice.
But then, I thought it would be very nice to give the user a visual feedback what the pocket-pc application is actually doing... and I thought about a progressbar to display the progress of the synchronisation process.
so far so good....
I wrote a SoapExtension for my webservice and tested it in a win-form application.. works great BUT
i have to provide a little snippet to my app.config file like:
< system.web >
< webServices >
< soapExtensionTypes>
< add type="TimeSheetApplication_FORM_test.ProgressExtension, TimeSheetApplication_FORM_test" priority="1" group="0" / >
< /soapExtensionTypes >
< /webServices >
< /system.web >
but a pocket-pc application doesnt have an app.config. okay, fair enough I thought..
I wanna get this soapextension-sh*t into its own project anyway. So I created a new class project and moved the soap-extension over.
but then I got the following errormessage when compiling:
The type 'System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol' is defined
in an assembly that is not referenced. You must add a reference to assembly
'System.Web.Services, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a'.......
....
The system.web.services assembly is already referenced in both project.....
has anybody consumed a webservice on a pocket-pc application via soapextension yet? and if yes, how did you tell the pocket-pc application to use the soapextension without providing this information in the app.config?
any help or suggestions are very appreciated!!!! ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
cheers
piratenwichtl
|
|
|
|
|
hi guys,
the solution is to create a class which is inheriting from SoapExtensionAttribute.
After that you set a attribute on top of the method you are calling the webservice and suddenly your soapextension gets invoked as well.
easy - if you know it 
cheers
piratenwichtl
-- modified at 19:59 Thursday 29th November, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, well i am working on a desktop application. I am trying to figure out how to create child nodes under the root. I have tried almost everything, and the closest i get to the solution is creating a child node that looks like this:
<Root>
<whatever name="something />
</Root>
when in fact i want
<Root>
<whatever name="something>
</whatever>
</Root>
Also, how can i place more child nodes under another child node once created?
Thank You
|
|
|
|
|
These 2 XML fragments are functionally equivalent:
<whatever name="something" />
<whatever name="something"></whatever>
If you want to add inner text to the <whatever> element, do this:
XmlNode whateverEle = ...;
whateverEle.InnerText = "some text";
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way for me to pass multiple variables in a constructor with a single variable, why because I will be repeating this process many time. Also have a definition for the constructor variables. See the following example:
PassVariables = {a, b, c)
ConstructorVariables = {this.A a, this.B b, this.C c)
Thanks in advance,
Michael
-- modified at 22:01 Wednesday 28th November, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
You could have all of the variables you want to pass inside an object that you pass through the constructor. There are many ways this can be done.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to what Paul said, you can also pass in an array:
class Foo
{
Foo(string[] variables)
{
this.A = variables[0];
this.B = variables[1];
...
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
You can pass this values as parameters to the constructor also
<br />
public class Foo{<br />
string a1, b1;<br />
Foo(string A, string B){<br />
a1=A;<br />
b1=B;<br />
}<br />
}<br />
Hope this helps.
Maharishi
Nothing is Impossible. Even impossible spells "i m possible"
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Everyone
is there any way to create/edit the ID3 tag of MP3 thru a C# application.
Cheers
Bino
www.codepal.co.in
|
|
|
|
|
There's at least one class in C# on this site for editing MP3 tags. V1 tags are just appended to the mp3, v2 tags are compressed.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
"also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
|
|
|
|
|
Bino B wrote: is there any way to create/edit the ID3 tag of MP3 thru a C# application.
Yes[^].
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I want to go another round with C# and its Visual personality. I found a Stéphane Rodriguez's templates [1,2]. The next step is the 'Toolbox' architecture.
Are then any boiler plate solutions available for a drag and drop toolbox full of widegets? This would be very similar (if not exact) to Visual Studio's Toolbox.
Jeff
[1] C# SDI/MDI Application Wizards[^]
[2] C# SDI/MDI Application Wizards[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to spending the last eight months using C#, life was good in the land of C++. I could use pointers without explicitly sharing that fact with the compiler. Implementing a Bus class that inherits from both GroundVehicle and PublicTransport was a non-issue. And of course, I could declare a method with thirty-two overloads in one definition using default parameters. The latest headache that I have encountered in C# is the removal of the ever useful typedef. Why is it that a new language, birthed from a great language like C++, would restrict its users by removing some of the most usefull features of the language? Did the designers of C# feel that code reuse is better left in the past because programming was becoming too convenient?
Why is it that now, during the code design phase of an application, when I don't know whether I will be using an int, string, long, etc. for a unique identifier, can I not either
(1) typedef a class "UniqueIdentifier" to int for now, so it can easily be changed EVERYWHERE later, or
(2) create a class "UniqueIdentifier" that inherits from int, which would essentially typedef it as in (1)?
Instead I have to guess which one I will end up using, then go through my code line by line in two months and find every single occurance of that type, then change it to whatever it should be. The only other alternative is to REIMPLEMENT the int class, which is a complete waste of my time. This lack of convenience perplexes and frustrates me to no end. I am also disappointed that an interface member who returns void (nothing) cannot be implemented by a method that returns some other type. Oh well, I guess that I will have to start implementing my own compiler so I don't have to put up with the lack of thought and foresight by the "greatest minds" in our field.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
To set in your ways with C++ eh?
They are different languages, they both have their strengths and weaknesses.
As for C# i actually find it quite good, and multiple inheritance, well, what can i say. A little actually, i don't wish it was there, it can be a bit of a hack some... alot of the time. You just have to use a different method than your used to, to acheive what you want.
My current favourite word is: PIE!
I have changed my name to my regular internet alias. But don't let the 'Genius' part fool you, you don't know what 'SK' stands for.
-The Undefeated
|
|
|
|
|
Multiple inheritance rocks. It's not the compilers fault if some peope who mis-use it are morons.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
"also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
|
|
|
|
|
I concur. People misuse all kinds of things incorrectly when coding
(and in life) even though they are extremely useful. It is because of the tools usefulness that leads to the ability to misuse it. Maybe next they will eliminate Goto statements.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but the different method to acheive what I want is to REIMPLEMENT the IDENTICAL code! I chose the word identical on purpose; I am not doing something similar, it is the same. Both an airplane and a bus have attributes like number of seats, required crew members, lavatories, tire count, etc., but they also have other attributes they share with other things like taillights for the bus, which the plane doesn't have. Reimplementing the SAME thing over and over again is such a waste of my time!
Don't get me wrong, there are some things about C# that are good, like the generic template types, template parameter constraints, built-in collections, more intuitive coding (lets face it, most people don't understand pointers), strong typing of enums, and cleaner more readable code. But I simply don't understand why some of the best parts of other languages were simply not included.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Skippums wrote: Reimplementing the SAME thing over and over again is such a waste of my time!
C# does lend itself to a deep inheritance heirarchy... Then you get into Tweety the Penguin syndrome: Base Class of Birds. Birds Fly. Penguins are birds, but Penguins don't fly. Time for another pair of shim classes - BirdsThatFly{ }, and BirdsThatDontFly{ }.
|
|
|
|
|
Skippums wrote: taillights for the bus, which the plane doesn't have
I thought planes did have tail lights. Isn't that where the term comes from?
|
|
|
|
|
They have an anticollision beacon (the bright red flashing light on top and bottom), running lights (the red and green on the front wingtips, white on the back of the plane), and a landing light or lights. I would consider none of those to be taillights that could be shared with those of a road vehicle, and therefore they should not appear in the airplane class. Regardless, if we ignore semantics and focus on the point, we can see that there are some things that can be categorized in a multitude of ways, and my contention is that an object-oriented language should be able to model that reality, and further, that it should be able to be modeled without any redundancy in code.
Jeff
-- modified at 19:43 Wednesday 28th November, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like it, then why program in C#?
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I do what my boss tells me to do. Besides, it IS good for readability and maintanence.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
I guess if the boss says so, you have to.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
