|
Yes, the TopMost trick would be a fix it but it's interesting to consider why it is needed.
Your observation of the configuration form behind the main form suggests that the main form is the last one to be shown. The desired order can probably be restored by deferring creation of the config form to the main form's Shown event.
An alternative would be to set the main form as the the owner of the config form, but then it would not be possible to bring the main form to the front, which may not be what you want.
Alan.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the reply. I'm willing to give that a try, how do I set the main form as owner?
|
|
|
|
|
I figured out why the main form loaded last, and have corrected it. It works like it should now, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
I just did some tests by starting notepad from a c# windows form, and yes notepad retains activated status. You can get round this by doing the
following;
(The test form has a textbox and a button)
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Process p;
p = System.Diagnostics.Process.Start("notepad.exe");
p.WaitForInputIdle();
this.Activate();
textBox1.Focus();
}
Your form will now retain Activated status, and notepad will not be the current active window.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Dave, I will play around with that now.
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of the confusion about this question is that the term "add-in" has several possible meanings in .NET: it may mean a plug-in, which is a Dll dynamically loaded into a certain area of an Application's Window, and, usually, cannot be "dynamically unloaded."
More recently Microsoft's MEF has come on the scene to provide a high-level architecture for plug-in type scenarios.
Some responses to this question have assumed you want to launch another (non .NET) application and make it work with your application (specifically, NotePad).
But, from your later comments on the thread, it seems you are loading a DLL that has a Form ... and, while you never state it directly, one might assume it's a Windows Form from .NET.
If you are loading a DLL, and then showing a .NET Form defined in that DLL, please check out the possible use of setting the 'Owner property of that Form to your Application's main Form.
And, please try, if possible, to be very specific about exactly what it is you are loading, and how it will function/interact along/with your Application.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to use one of the Stream classes to lock a portion of a disk file? How?
I think this might be better than using a mutex to control access to the entire file at once.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes that's it. I couldn't find that function in the docs prior to you showing me the link!
Thanks. I was hoping they supported that ability.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice, didn't know that was possible.
|
|
|
|
|
xmlDoc = new XmlDocument();
using (XmlWriter xmlWriter = xmlDoc.CreateNavigator().AppendChild())
{
xmlWriter.WriteStartDocument();
xmlWriter.WriteStartElement("INTERACTIONS", xmlns);
xmlWriter.WriteStartElement("CALL_STATUS");
xmlWriter.WriteString("open");
xmlWriter.WriteEndElement();
xmlWriter.WriteStartElement("ARE_DOCS_REQUIRED");
xmlWriter.WriteString("No");
xmlWriter.WriteEndElement();
string ipxml =<Data>
<First_Name>Thomas</First_Name>
<Middle_Name>Alwa</Middle_Name>
<Last_Name>Edison</Last_Name>
</Data>
xmlWriter.WriteStartElement("MY_COMPLAINT");
xmlWriter.WriteString("ipxml");
xmlWriter.WriteEndElement();
xmlWriter.WriteEndDocument();
}
xmlDoc.InnerXml.ToString();
I have created an xml document using xmlWriter and having xmlelement
my problem is XML element 'MY_COMPLAINT' contains another XML which is 'ipxml', when the xml file is created MY_COMPLAINT element contains ipxml as a string but i want it has to be its Child element
how can i convert ipxml string to be as child node of MY_COMPLAINT
as xmlwriter.WriteString accepts parameters as a string.
Help me out.
Thanks in advanced..
|
|
|
|
|
Don't ask for urgent help, its rude. This is a volunteer site and people will answer you on their time, not yours.
No comment
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also a huge fan of posts that end with "Thanks in advance!" which basically means you'll never see or hear from the OP again unless they couldn't figure out your answer .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then don't write it with xmlWriter.WriteString ; create an element for it.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what happens if you just copy-paste code without applying your mind to it. If you put a little thought, you will realize that you can create another element using a WriteStartElement and WriteEndElement pair instead of a WriteString .
NOTE: This is a volunteer site where people try to help others for free in their spare time. So do not use phrases like "it's urgent", etc., it's considered rude here. Read the posting guidelines before making any post.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I am looking for the best ways to create an api which will monitor the database table row version.
if this api found any row update manually (i.e., directly login to SQL server) than it will send an acknowledgement with the following information:
(1) LogIn detail of the data server.
(2) Access database name with datatime.
(3) Affected table name, row version and row number as well.
I will be glad for your any suggestion / ides on that.
Thanks
Md. Marufuzzaman
I will not say I have failed 1000 times; I will say that I have discovered 1000 ways that can cause failure – Thomas Edison.
|
|
|
|
|
Md. Marufuzzaman wrote: I will be glad for your any suggestion
I suggest you don't cross-post: ask your question once, in a single forum. You should know that by now.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Yes, you are right, actually this can be done from database end or may C# application end as well,
that's way I post. anyway; I sincerely apology & thanks for your response.
Thanks
Md. Marufuzzaman
I will not say I have failed 1000 times; I will say that I have discovered 1000 ways that can cause failure – Thomas Edison.
|
|
|
|
|
Univote countered.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
|
Md. Marufuzzaman wrote: I am looking for the best ways to create an api which will monitor the database table row version.
if this api found any row update manually (i.e., directly login to SQL server) than it will send an acknowledgement with the following information:
(1) LogIn detail of the data server.
(2) Access database name with datatime.
(3) Affected table name, row version and row number as well.
I question the requirement.
If you have a small application/database then it is pointless.
If you have a large application/database (and volume) then any such notification system would be worthless because it would overwhelm all other work.
Further one doesn't identify a row in the database by "row number". For example if there are three users in the database and I change the last name of one of them I would not send a notification for "row 2" but rather that the user "jdoe" last name has changed to "Smith".
Conversely you might have this sort of requirement.
1. You are displaying a list of users
2. You want to update that list if anyone else changes it
That requires monitoring one table, not all. And then the client, not the database, polls the database as some small, but not real small interval, to check for changes.
However even those sort of requirements are often pointless because they are often the result of made up requirements rather than real business need.
For example - the admin claims that they need the above functionality. Then one asks the admin exactly how many admins are going to be updating the user table on a minute by minute basis. The answer will often be that such updates only seldom and that they are down via a admin process/task. As such there is no possibility that other admins would even be impacted by such an update because only one admin would be doing it at a time.
Another example - consumer order entry system where someone claims that the customer address might change. The question then is what sort of customer calls up on a different phone to update their address at the same time that they are placing an order on another line? Conversely for business customers what sort of business is going to update their address at the same time and use two different values (excluding legal disputes between competing partners which no technological solution is going to fix.)
|
|
|
|
|
It all really depends on the OPs real requirements and design. Polling is not a very elegant solution and will bog down your database server if you have more then a few clients.
* are there multiple clients from outside your firewall? if so, its unlikely they'll even be able to connect to the database directly anyways
* do you really need instant real time sync'ed up data between clients?
* there *IS* a built in mechanism for *PUSH* called SqlDependency, but it needs your design to be one where only a single instance server piece is connecting to the DB and clients connect to the server piece and the server piece pushes out the notifications itself
* is the client application display only, or will clients be updating data? if so, you need to decide on your write policy because that will effect design as well. Does last writer always win? Probably not.
Lets say User A grabs a row which is A B C D. User B grabs the same row and gets A B C D. Now User A changes B -> E, so the row in the DB is A E C D. User B still has A B C D and changes D to F. Now should the database contain A E C D, A B C F or A E C F. In most scenarios, its going to be A E C F.
Honestly, at first glance, from the OPs question, I suspect he is getting concurrency exceptions and is going about it the wrong way to fix them .
|
|
|
|
|
SledgeHammer01 wrote: It all really depends on the OPs real requirements and design. Polling is not a very elegant solution and will bog down your database server if you have more then a few clients.
First you can do that with several hundred clients an not significantly impact any modern database on a reasonable database server as long as your polling is reasonable.
Second if such a solution is needed at all the other possibilities are push or pull (polling). And attempting to push from a database to many clients is not a good idea.
SledgeHammer01 wrote: * are there multiple clients from outside your firewall? if so, its unlikely they'll even be able to connect to the database directly anyways
And of course with that description they wouldn't be able to do anything at all with the database and thus the entire question would be pointless, so we can suppose that that is not the situation.
SledgeHammer01 wrote: Does last writer always win? Probably not.
For most business models that is in fact entirely appropriate that the last write wins because real (versus imagined) business scenarios almost always fit that model.
SledgeHammer01 wrote: Lets say User A grabs a row which is A B C D. User B grabs the same row and gets A B C D....
Yes that is an excellent explanation of an imagined scenario. However most businesses do not work like that. As per my previous example a customer doesn't update a shipping address at the same time using two different addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: First you can do that with several hundred clients an not significantly impact
any modern database on a reasonable database server as long as your polling is
reasonable.
If you are writing a POP3 client or something of that nature, a 10 minute poll is reasonable. If you are writing something like a stock ticker where real time updates are important, 10 minutes is certainly not reasonable. Stock tickers need to update at LEAST once per second. Still connecting directly to the database is generally a bad design.
jschell wrote: Second if such a solution is needed at all the other possibilities are push or
pull (polling). And attempting to push from a database to many clients is not a
good idea.
I already said that pushing directly from the database is not a good idea
jschell wrote: And of course with that description they wouldn't be able to do anything at all
with the database and thus the entire question would be pointless, so we can
suppose that that is not the situation.
Not at all. From the OPs question, it sounded like he is just randomly trying to fix problems as they come up without having a big picture design. Having your database accessible from outside the firewall is the worst idea ever. More so, in a REAL corporate environment, you can not connect
directly to the database from the client because security settings should not allow your app access to create users. So what happens in the real world (even in internal corp apps) is that only the database team has permissions to create / modify users, so you only get one database user (with db_datawriter and db_datareader only) and you have a server piece that connects to the DB using that user and all the clients connect to the server piece over some random port using TCP/IP, .NET remoting, web services or some other method and your app has a users table that it manages itself.
jschell wrote: For most business models that is in fact entirely appropriate that the last
write wins because real (versus imagined) business scenarios almost always fit
that model.
jschell wrote: Yes that is an excellent explanation of an imagined scenario. However most
businesses do not work like that. As per my previous example a customer doesn't
update a shipping address at the same time using two different addresses.
Completely and utterly false. Last write wins is only the "real world" scenario in your niave little world where everybody is nice and only one person is modifying a database record at one time . In the big boy world (again )... records can get written simultaneously all the time.
How's this for an "imagined scenario"?
Ever been to a doctors office recently? You know how they are all fancy and computerized now? So you get your examination or whatever and you leave the room. The doctor starts typing up notes about your appointment. At the same time you are talking to the receptionist to schedule your next appointment. Doc saves his notes. Ooops... now receptionist saves your new appointment date. You just stomped all over docs notes because receptionist is the last writer!!! OH NOOOO!!! you cut into his golf time!!! now he has to retype his notes and gets pissed at you!!
You could of course "lock" the record while it is being edited, but that won't really work in this scenario because 1) patient will be standing around waiting for doc to finish typing in his notes or 2) doc will stand around waiting for receptionist to finish scheduling your appointment
end result is that either patient or doc is not going to be happy.
|
|
|
|