|
Please Read These
Ref1[^]
And
Ref2[^]
cheers,
Abhijit
CodeProject.Com MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I created a DLL (class library) on C#.NET (2005) and want
to use it as an ActiveX control on a web page (html).
I have checked the box for Make "assembly COM visible" in the
project properties before I build the DLL. Code does do much,
here is my C# code for ctrl
namespace MyActiveXctrlLib
{
public partial class MyUserCtrl : UserControl
{
public string setName
{
set
{
txtName.Text = value;
}
}
public MyUserCtrl()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
}
}
here is my HTML
<title>Untitled Page
<object id="myControl1" name="myControl1" classid="MyActiveXctrlLib.dll#MyActiveXctrlLib.MyUserCtrl" width="288" height="50">
function doScript()
{
myControl1.setName = frm.txt.value;
}
on button click doScript(); is executed .
it sets the setName property of myControl1 i.e. WinForm control.
this code working successfully on IE 7.0 machine having .NET installed on them
but is not working on Machine those dnt have .NET installed on them.
not checked on IE 6.0.
Thanks in advance .
DaTtA 
way2datta@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
Dattatraya Kale wrote: Subject: Run .NET ActiveX control on IE 7.0 machine that doesnt have .NET installed.
This is crosspost. You have already put the same question in asp.net forum.
cheers,
Abhijit
|
|
|
|
|
Was it really necessary to spam 5 forums with the same question??
Don't do this again. It's considered very rude and will not get your question answered any faster.
|
|
|
|
|
hello
guys, anyone know how to do mapping file for this? For example:
<hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.0">
<class name="ThinkFundamentals.Util.Security.Person, ThinkFundamentals.Util.Security" table="Person">
<id name="Id" column="Id" type="Int64" unsaved-value="0">
<generator class="native" />
</id>
<property name="FirstName" column="FirstName" type="String(50)" />
<property name="MiddleName" column="MiddleName" type="String(50)" />
...
<!-- how to map this to ObjProperties table? -->
<property name="ObjProperties" type="Util.Object" ??? />
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
There's a table named "ObjProperties", schema for example:
Id int
PersonId int /* references */
PropertyName varchar(50),
PropertyValue varchar(50)
...
And class "Util.Object.ObjProperties" is NOT a collection class, but it contains one.
class ObjectProperties
{
... other properties ...
Hashtable _properties = new HashTable(); << See, that's the property collection.
...
}
I got a feeling this setup is not very nHibernate-friendly?
Thanks!
dev
|
|
|
|
|
public class MainClass
{
public virtual long MainKey {get; set;}
public virtual SubClass SubInstance {get; set;}
public class SubClass
{
public virtual long SubKey {get;set;}
}
}
can be mapped as:
<class name="MainClass" table="Main">
<id name="MainKey" column="MainId" type="Int64">
<generator class="identity" />
</id>
<many-to-one name="SubInstance" class="MainClass+SubClass" Column="SubId"/>
</class>
<class name="MainClass+SubClass" table="Sub">
<id name="SubKey" column="SubId" type="Int64">
<generator class="identity" />
</id>
</class>
So you need to use a plus(+) sign.
(I believe you have to use a dollar ($) sign for this in java hibernate)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks but you're late (I don't use nHibernate no more!)
(But still thanks and voted 5 for ya)
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
Support I am using str1 = str2 statement, both str1 and str2 are type of string.
Then, suppose str1 is hold by thread 1 and str2 is hold by thread 2. My question is whether operation (for example, tryu to change content of the string, toupper, tolower, replacement) on str1 (from thread 1) and operaton on str2 (from thread 2) are thread safe?
My idea is it is thread safe, since even if str1 and str2 are pointing to the same string instance, but as string is immutable, i.e. each operation which will change the content of the string will make a new string. So, it is thread safe.
Am I correct?
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
A quick check on MSDN[^] would show you that the string class as a whole is thread safe.
|
|
|
|
|
All operations in string class is thread safe?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Did you not even look at the link I sent you?!
It definitely isn't definatley
|
|
|
|
|
I read it and it mentions all string operations are thread safe. It makes me surprised, just double check with you.
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure I should be flattered but given that Microsoft wrote the class, I'd probably believe their documentation over anything I have to say.
It definitely isn't definatley
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks moon_stick,
I agree with the conclusion. My question is about why.
I think the reason why all methods of string class are thread safe is because string is immutable, i.e. when the string is modified, a new instance is created. Agree or?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Immutable objects are inherently thread safe but it's quite possible for an object to be thread safe without being immutable.
I'm done answering questions on this topic now - go and search on google (thread safety) or MSDN if you want more detail.
It definitely isn't definatley
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks moon_stick,
I appreciate your help.
My question is for the root cause why string is thread safe, is it because string is immutable (i.e. every update operation on string will create a new instance.)?
(MSDN does not answer this.)
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
As I stated in my last answer, strings are thread safe because strings are immutable and immutable objects are thread safe.
I can't see a valid reason why you'd actually need to know this information anyway (and quite franky, don't care so don't bother telling me).
Now leave me alone before I lose my temper.
It definitely isn't definatley
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks moon_stick,
Sorry for any inconvenience. I like to study internals and find why besides just the rules.
It is good that we find the root reason why string class is thread safe because it is immutable.
regards and have a good weekend,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Im surprised that after being told coutless times to read the docs before asking a question you still don't bother. However this does not change the reality that you still don't.
Do you see how this applies to the current situation?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks J4amieC,
I agree with the conclusion. My question is about why.
I think the reason why all methods of string class are thread safe is because string is immutable, i.e. when the string is modified, a new instance is created. Agree or?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
moon_stick wrote: Did you not even look at the link I sent you?!
Are you not familiar with George? Yes, he is an odd one, although not sure "odd" does him justice. I believe he has some crazy job that pays him by the number of internet forum posts he makes.
moon_stick wrote: I'm sure I should be flattered but given that Microsoft wrote the class, I'd probably believe their documentation over anything I have to say.
Do not expect George to understand even the simplest things from any documentation. Oh and, good luck.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: Are you not familiar with George?
That was my first encounter - I think I get the idea already...!! 
It definitely isn't definatley
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
