|
This is obviously an ASP.NET question. Why not use the appropriate forum, you might get an answer faster.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Call th.Start with the Start(object Parameter) overload; pass in your Request value.
|
|
|
|
|
Or just the particular querystring value would do 
|
|
|
|
|
I thought we were here to help people, yes? So in this case we have helped this person create an overly complicated resource intensive implementation of sending an email, is that about it? Whatever happened to the KISS Principle[^] or Occam's razor?
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that a thread is not an appropriate method with which to accomplish this task, however I would argue that the best method is not the most simple: an XMLHTTPRequest object, perhaps in a master page, could asynchronously perform the operation, allowing the user to continue browsing until informed of success. This is considerably more difficult to implement than a basic postback, which would leave the user hanging for a noticeable period of time and is thus an inferior technique in this situation.
Besides, who hasn't used threading in an overly simple case just to get some practice in? 
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Westbrook wrote: however I would argue that the best method is not the most simple: an XMLHTTPRequest object, perhaps in a master page, could asynchronously perform the operation, allowing the user to continue browsing until informed of success.
Really? What happens when the user "continues browsing" to the IBM web site, how are you going to inform them that email was sent?
Steve Westbrook wrote: however I would argue that the best method is not the most simple: an XMLHTTPRequest object, perhaps in a master page, could asynchronously
I would argue that without specific use model requirements proving the usability of that, you are wrong. It's far more likely that you have been brain washed by the AJAX is going to save the world magic show. 
Anyway the OP did not indicate that:
Ryno Burger wrote: However, I made a "Please Wait..." page while the email gets send in the background the user see the "Please Wait..." page.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you about AJAX's influence in general, and its improper use and overuse. As a friend of mine said of the fad of putting Windows Apps online, it's like trying to write Pong in assembly - I mean, you can do it, but why? As for browsing away, that is a problem to overcome; if the user closes the window or otherwise navigates away, however, one might view it as a "Cancel" request, but that's a story for another day... and another forum... and someone who cares more than me... However, I must say that avoiding a long wait time for the user is a good thing; an "e-mail sent" notif. in a corner of the window seems more appealing to me than the infamous load bar, and having worked with AJAX for longer than I ever planned I have to say it's nice seeing the screen flicker instead of vanishing for a full second every time I need to transmit e.g. a 6-character string to the server. In other words, it's ugly, it's annoying, and believe me it's full of bugs, but it's a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Westbrook wrote: and believe me it's full of bugs
I don't know what you mean "full of bugs". I've done async web request development since 1998 and it worked perfectly. If you mean one can produce a buggy program by abusing async requests where the use model does not fit, say for example sending an email, then yes that's a problem but I would not consider it a bug of async web requests.
Steve Westbrook wrote: it's nice seeing the screen flicker instead of vanishing for a full second every time I need to transmit
That is not limited to async requests. Again you have been able to send/receive and update a section of HTML using javascript and DHTML since IE4 came out but you can do all that with a blocking call if you choose. So async requests have nothing to do with preventing entire page redraws. Furthermore neither is "new" they have both been supported since IE4 which was released in 1997.[^]
In case you can't tell AJAX is one of those things that sets me off. It's bullshit marketing hype for the purpose of selling lousy products that are of little or no value to the concept of developing web applications. Products that provide yet another means for people that don't understand the technology they are employing to develop applications. Basically creating more garbage software in world that needs less. My non technical friends and acquaintances are always asking me why the web sites they use don't work. I can't explain it to them but the real answer is if you give a million monkeys AJAX you will get a bunch of monkey crap.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: abusing async requests where the use model does not fit
I was thinking more Microsoft's AJAX dummy tools, rather than Async JS/XML proper. A solid system should be able to do stuff for which it was never intended and keep kicking; you should be able to hand it to an ambitious little code monkey and get back a working system, not a pile of monkey crap. After all, it's been done in Windows for years  . What concerns me is that if you throw a bunch of (Microsoft's) AJAX controls on a page, those being as close as we'll get for a long time to a unified standard, after a certain critical mass the chance of some major error occurring increases; throw in third party controls and you've really got a mess. On the other hand, if you add an extra button to a crowded Windows form, your concerns are primarily stylistic. The whole system is so damned incestuous - putting everything on a single page, whether you use Iframes and their various relatives as separating mechanisms or not, is like writing an entire Windows form's functionality inside the form - it works for simple stuff, but if you try anything interesting, you really have to cover your, um, source code. Blockquotes work alright, but again, why jam a bunch of functionality into form_load? Split it into separate pages and think of them as classes with built-in return functionality. Or don't.
As for DHTML, I've worked with it. Do you really want to go back to that?
As for setting me off, just about anything code-related does it. I did just spend five hours on a Greyhound bus in driving snow, if that's an excuse. Two months and my commuting days are over...
Oh, and you know something else? Web parts... but that definitely belongs in the rants section.
|
|
|
|
|
i would personally not create the thread in that way at all, create the thread using async cals and callbacks, especially if displaying a please wait message...
might help...
[clicky clicky]
|
|
|
|
|
Hello guys I have to use datagrid (VS 2003) (not datagridview object) to modify an old project.
Prob 1
I need to capture double click event either on the row or the cell in the DataGrid and then read the
contents from that row. I have seen the props in the DataGrid object and I can't see any double click events like there are in datagridview object in VS 2005.
Prob 2
I need to change the width on individual columns in the DataGrid but can't see any property, but PreferedColumnWidth which sets the size for all the columns.
If any body can help me to fix this. It will b highly appreciated.
o O º(`'·.,(`'·., ?,.·''),.·'')º O o°
»·'"`»* *? t4ure4n ?* *«·'"`«
°o O º(,.·''(,.·'' ?`'·.,)`'·.,)º O o°
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 1:
You'll have to use a little trickery. Inject some javascript that handles the click events on the client side and causes a postback, or a callback as necessary.
Problem 2:
You'll need to handle the RowCreated event and set the column width there.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Bro.
The app I am woking on is a WinForm and not webbased.
second I can't c "RowCreated event" in the event list of DataGrid Object.
o O º(`'·.,(`'·., ?,.·''),.·'')º O o°
»·'"`»* *? t4ure4n ?* *«·'"`«
°o O º(,.·''(,.·'' ?`'·.,)`'·.,)º O o°
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I assumed Web since when not specified that is usually the target here.
After the DataGrid has been bound loop through the columns and set the width.
And don't use Bro please
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I have to select * from a table where customer_name is not equal to John .
Is this a good query? :
select * from table where customer_name != john
thanx
|
|
|
|
|
The SQL forum would probably be a better place to ask a SQL related questions.
!= is not recognized by SQL, you need to use <>
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
And you are NOT advised to use 'select * ' either.
modified on Monday, February 11, 2008 12:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
You mean NOT advised 
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, I did. Thanks for the comment 
|
|
|
|
|
Giorgi Dalakishvili,
Just wondering, but whys it not recommended to use "select * from" in SQL?
Regards,
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I remember when you use "select * from" sql server has to find out all the columns that are present in the table you are querying. On the other hand, when you list the columns you wish to select sql just selects them, in other words it doesn't need to perform one extra step. So it is better to specify the columns you wish to select rather then use * even if you need all columns from the table
|
|
|
|
|
Giorgi Dalakishvili,
Ahhh, thanks for that. I thought it might of been a security risk of some type. Learn something new everyday and all that!
Regards,
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
i was working on a project and want to develope an application using visual studios 2005 that can search through all files on my windows system and get all shared is there any class that can get this done for me
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
