|
I looked into both suggestions but my class was too complicated to use structs and making it cloneable looked like overkill for what I needed. I've solved the problem by adding a copy constructor to the class which creates the new object and copies each property across from the old one.
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been trying to save the entire request.browser object to my MSSQL 2005 database. I used to save objects to a Firebird database in Java, by putting them in a blob field.
Now however, I can't seem to do it with the C# MSSQL 2005 combination. I've tried an "image" field, aswell as an "binairy(MAX)" field. I've tried serializing it (apparently the object request.browser comes from can't be serialized), and I'm basically all out of ideas.
So my question, good people, anyone ever tried this before, or has some pointers at how I could accomplish this? I'm only trying to put the object in the database, making a new object and copying all the data in there is not an option.
modified on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
i have a problem, i create a class for example for each customer, now i want to held all "customers" so the class of them in a array...
how can i do this?
it must be possible to delete objects, and add them to this array... and is that possible with arrays?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Arrays are ok, but better would be Generic List[^]
Read up and use that 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever came across some thing like this[^]?
*jaans
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, beat ya to it 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Try using a generic list. You can do all sorts of things with it.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
HAHA Everyone jumped on this one 
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe yea, I like to promote the use of generic List wherever possible
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone suggested using a list yet?
My current favourite word is: Bacon!
-SK Genius
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest a book instead.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Is one of those books a Dictionary?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is one of those books a Dictionary?
I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Does this result in you performing a core dump?
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don't do core dumps either, analyzing them also puts me in an eternal loop.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Yes, of course, books should stay into the stacks.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
You can make a LIFO stack in the corner. Or buy some string and make a linked list. Or buy two buckets and make a hash table.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Buying buckets to store books. That's a novel concept, I'll have to ponder that a while.
However my first book isn't waterproof... So I'll go for the string, bind the books
together, and get rid of the problem. I can store one bucket in the corner (that will come
handy some day), and no need for a stack, so now I have a spare bucket.
Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion? an array of buckets? Anyone with a better idea?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Another idea for storing books would be a table. One book on the table, and one to keep it level.
Or perhaps a tree of some sort. If you already have the string.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion?
Buckets are usually very stackable, at least when empty.
Otherwise you can just put them in boxes and throw them in a heap.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Guffa wrote: Buckets are usually very stackable, at least when empty. Otherwise you can just put them in boxes and throw them in a heap.
Aha, buckets can be boxed, hence they are value types, hence I don't need my string
to link them together, I'll use it to bind the books instead as I already was going to;
so all I need now is two boxes. In the end, in order to store two books, I need two boxes.
Right. OO is simple after all, it just takes a while to get used to it.
Now that we discovered all this, do we still need the second book? and the buckets?
and the string? the boxes? And if we only need a single book, what is all this OO about??
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Books are usually already bound when you buy them. If you use thread instead of string, and make a doubly linked list, it would be multi threaded. I hope that you don't have a single threaded apartment.
If you have only one book, you could get some glue and make it static.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Guffa wrote: Books are usually already bound when you buy them
Yes, of course, but I was given the advice of storing the books in buckets, and
they fell apart; no one told me to buy empty buckets. And I wish I'd gotten the glue
advice first. Yes mine is a typical singles apartment, how did you guess?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll change up the recommendations. If you only need Add() and Remove() functionality, I would say to use the Generic Collection class from the System.Collections.ObjectModel namespace instead and avoid the extra bloat of the Generic List.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
