|
Yes you r right.
Session is Expired within 5-10 mins.
|
|
|
|
|
Then I think there is something in your code which is over writing the virtual directory session timeout
How come you dont use the solution in the post above to put the sessiojn timeout in web config
|
|
|
|
|
I you are using forms you should check
<br />
<authentication mode="Forms"><br />
<forms timeout="1024" /><br />
</authentication><br />
also if you didn't do it yet.
<br />
<system.web><br />
<sessionstate timeout="1440" mode="InProc" /><br />
</system.web><br />
|
|
|
|
|
The user sign in to my website without sign out enter into another site (type address in address bar). For this situation I want to logout my website. How to do this? I am using ASP.NET 2.0 with C#
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there is an easy way to do this as there would be no way of running a bit of code to detect this
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few ways that you could go about doing this, each with their own set of trade-offs. The first couple that come to mind for me are:
Use the built-in ASP.NET session management and force your logout code to run when the session expires (see the Session_End handler in global.asax. The default session expiration is a 20 minute sliding timer from the last request/response activity. This number can be tuned to your liking, but remember that it will effect a user that leaves their browser idle as well as one that actively browsed away from your site.
Another possibility is to use a session-based cookie (reference[^]) to signify that a user has logged into your site and use the unload event of the window object (reference[^]) in client script to force your logout code to run. The downside here is that you would be logging the user out each time they navigated from page-to-page, even within your site and you would have to read the cookie to verify that they're authenticated to your site and run your login code each time. The result is rather messy, as your login and logout code are running for each page of your site. The user would also be able to leave your site and return still authenticated until they closed their browser.
My recommendation would be to consider the first technique of using the built-in session. Unless you have extremely sensitive content or logout code that absolutely must run immediately, I find that the session is usually a good trade-off.
Hope that helps a bit to get you started. 
--Jesse "... the internet's just a big porn library with some useful articles stuck in." - Rob Rodi
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Can someone please tell me what is the exact difference between ASP.NET 2003, 2005, 2008.
I know that in 2005 partial class is added and in 2008 we can build style sheet, but I want to know more. Like, is there any change in .NET framework or any other important difference.
Thanks in advance...
|
|
|
|
|
Please read this[^].
Christian Graus
Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you
"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 )
|
|
|
|
|
hi friends
how to get referal url in c#?
please tell me
|
|
|
|
|
Request.UrlReferrer
Hope that helps.
--Jesse "... the internet's just a big porn library with some useful articles stuck in." - Rob Rodi
|
|
|
|
|
Request.UrlReferrer
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
hi
in my project for a particular page, i want to block the anonymous users from viewing that page for three times only. how can i do it? please help me.
thanks
mukesh.
|
|
|
|
|
You could do it with cookies, just store a cookie to say how often they have visited. Of course, delete the cookie and they get three more visits.
Christian Graus
Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you
"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 )
|
|
|
|
|
You could also do it by IP. The downside whould be that if some users are behind a proxy than you'll have a maximum 3 hits for all the users behind that proxy .
|
|
|
|
|
Hi..
I am new to asp.net..
I want run some client side applications from my asp.net web application using activeX controls..
I didnt find much on google about this..
Does anyone know how to do it?
Som
|
|
|
|
|
You need to write an active X control and pray that the browser will give you access to the host file system. As I said to you before, I think the odds of that are close to zero for what you want to do.
Christian Graus
Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you
"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 )
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: You need to write an active X control
This is what I want to know , how to go about doing it..
How to write the activeX control for asp.net..
Couldnt find much on google..
Do you have any other option apart from using activeX to run specific applications in the client machine?
Som
|
|
|
|
|
I have created a C++/CLI Application which needs to be run from the web..
Initially the application would reside in the clients computer, via an installation process..
Now whenever the user logs in in the website, I need to run this application from the clients machine to run and it would send information back to server from within the application..
I am stuck up on the part that how to run the application on the client machine when the user logs in..
Can anyone advise on this..
How to write an activeX for this..
Or any other ideas??
Som
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I was thinking about the following scenario, and how it might cause a deadlock (in the case of 25 maximum threads):
-Thread1 locks object A
-Thread2 to Thread25 are created and all attempt to lock object A (but are put in a waiting state until Thread1 releases the lock)
-Thread1 creates another thread (Thread26) to perform an asyncronous operation, and waits for that to finish before releasing object A from the lock
now, since there are already 25 threads going, it seems to me like Thread26 will not be allowed to execute until another thread finishes...but that will never happen because all the other threads are waiting for object A to be released...which will never be released because Thread26 will never start executing, let alone finish...so everything will go into deadlock.
Am i missing something here? Perhaps when a thread waits for a lock to free, the ThreadPool allows another thread to execute while it waits?
Altho this seems like a far fetched situation, I can definately see it happening if you have a global Context.Application object being used a lot, and one thread happens to take a while to execute while it is locked (which is a potential scenario in an application I'm writing right now).
Thanks,
--Mike
|
|
|
|
|
mmGoDLiKe wrote: Thread1 creates another thread (Thread26) to perform an asyncronous operation
How about starting this thread as a new one instead of using the one in pool ?
mmGoDLiKe wrote: I can definately see it happening if you have a global Context.Application object being used a lot,
Yes, we had the same issue. The previous project which I worked were using "Application" object for caching frequently used data. We changed this to cache and everything started working normally.
|
|
|
|
|
mmGoDLiKe wrote: Altho this seems like a far fetched situation
It sure is. Locking should be used sparingly, and you should use it for as short a time as possible. You should definitely not do something like starting another thread and wait for it to finish inside a lock.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Guffa wrote: You should definitely not do something like starting another thread and wait for it to finish inside a lock.
Please correct me if I am wrong - AFAIK, if we start a new thread (not from the pool), it will get executed and lock will be released. It won't be queued as it is not accessing the locked resource. Can you tell me why it is a bad way to start new thread inside a lock ?
|
|
|
|
|
I am using Menu controls in combination with MultiView controls.
So, I wanted to use the update capability of the AJAX's UpdatePanel Control.
However, it works fine for the MultiView- View controls, but not for the Menu.
The error is generated from WebResource.axd file saying "0.cells is null or not an object" - coming from a statement referring to "rows[0].cells.length".
Anybody knows about it?
Thanks.
Ekjon
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind, I'm going to try this:
<asp:updatepanel id="upnlMenu" runat="server" childrenastriggers="false" updatemode="Conditional">
|
|
|
|
|
In the last days I started to add some ajax functionality to an existing non ajax application using aps.net ajax. One of the tasks was to move an existing gridview into an update panel so that it can be refreshed without page loading. The problem that I’ve encountered was that I couldn’t do a normal (sync) postback from the grid view. So I lost a half a day searching for an answer  .
The solution is to use the ScriptManager RegisterPostBackControl function and register the links/buttons for which you need normal postback here.
<br />
foreach (GridViewRow row in ClaimGridView.Rows)<br />
{<br />
Control c = (Control)row.Cells[0].FindControl("myctrl");<br />
ScriptManager.GetCurrent(this.Page).RegisterPostBackControl(c);<br />
}<br />
PS:  I also tried using another UpdatePanel for my column and adding an asp:PostBackTrigger but it didn't not work.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
