|
Yes, I mean normal.
Thanks a lot you help me to understand about my problem.
Ido
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you get it worked out.
Why are your posts all in bold? It makes them difficult to read. You should stop doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
I've tried a lot of things already, but haven't got/found a satisfying solution.
Problem:
I have a custom control that inherits from Button. It's properties are shown in a PropertyGrid.
This control has some additional properties (which is no problem), but
I don't want to show all the standard properties like the whole Accessibility-Category and some more.
So is it possible to tell the propertygrid or the control which properties are going to be shown and which are not?
I have found to override and set the properties to "Browsable(false)", but isn't there more elegant and cleaner way to do this?
Is it possible to exclude a whole category?
The ideal case would be that my customButton only shows the Appearance, Behaviour, Design and Layout Cetagory and my own properties, but nothing else.
Thanks a lot in advance for your help
|
|
|
|
|
No, unfortunately not. That's the idea behind inheritance, you add to something, not take away from it. MS do it themselves of course but they don't give us the option.
The best you can do is declare the property as new instead of override, that way you can make it readonly by only providing a getter and decorating with these attributes.
[Browsable(false),
DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Hidden),
Obsolete]
public new string Text
{
get { return base.Text; }
}EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never) has no effect.
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot
I implemented it that way then.
But then occurs another question:
- I am not able to hide the "Desgin-Category" properties like (Name) and Locked.
and i couldn't find a solution on net, just some more asking for help 
Is it possible to hide it, because the name is simply irrelevant in my application.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
No you can't. The Name property is just the name given to that particular instance of the class. Just like doing
TextBox textBox = new TextBox();
The Name of that particular instance is now textBox. It's extremely rare that the Name isn't needed.
For future reference, if you derive from System.ComponentModel.Component you don't get any of the superfluous properties, events or methods. You also get a Component not a Control though. Control derives from Component however so it may be possible to create your own Control class from Component with some work, that doesn't have the unecessary stuff. That would make a great article!
The Control class definition is
public class Control : Component, IDropTarget, ISynchronizeInvoke, IWin32Window, IBindableComponent, IComponent, IDisposable
{
}
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Java is open source language. Microsoft .Net Framework is not open source. I can open Microsoft .Net dll files with using reflector. Example for Abs function in Net Framework;
mscorlib --> System --> Math --> Abs
public static int Abs(int value)
{
if (value >= 0)
{
return value;
}
return AbsHelper(value);
}
private static int AbsHelper(int value)
{
if (value == -2147483648)
{
throw new OverflowException(Environment.GetResourceString("Overflow_NegateTwosCompNum"));
}
return -value;
}
So I can see dll files code and I can modify it. Thus it became open source, will you?
|
|
|
|
|
1) Java is a language, .NET is a framework, you're comparing apples with beef. If you want to compare languages, try and compare Java to C#. Or compare the Virtual Machines. Or.. learn what the definition means
2) Being able to "read" compiled source doesn't make it open source.
3) What are you trying to achieve with this post?
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Java is a language, .NET is a framework, you're comparing apples with beef.
Actually, .Net would be pork, as in "full of".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: 1) Java is a language
Yes, however it is also a platform[^] and one could certainly argue that it is a Framework along the lines of .NET.
I'm certainly not defending the OP ( I'm not sure I could get high enough to want to do that  ), however comparing the Java platform to the .NET Framework is not completely unreasonable since there are many similarities.
|
|
|
|
|
The Wiki-article that you quote also states that Java is used in a number of platforms. The .NET framework is also available for multiple platforms. Java is a language, not the sole property of Sun. C# is a language, not the sole property of Microsoft.
#define platform There's an article in these kind of definitions, but I'm not going to burn myself on the color and taste of a word +)
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: #define platform
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There's an article in these kind of definitions, but I'm not going to burn myself on the color and taste of a word
I'm not either but you stated the OP was comparing apples to beef and while the OP is obviously clueless I don't see what you posted matching up completely with other things I have read. For example this MSDN Documentation[^].
This guide is aimed at developers who are responsible for creating and implementing enterprise level business applications based on either Microsoft .NET or on J2EE and where interoperability between the two platforms is a requirement.
Now if you think the guys at Microsoft have it wrong about their own product Ok but I am just talking about what I read from people far more connected than myself, not what I personally think defines a "platform".
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: not what I personally think defines a "platform".
Partially context-based, and interpretations vary; platforms is used here to denote the sum of the technologies for both platforms, whereas in the first post it was more in the context of a platform that enables execution, like for instance, an Operating System or a Virtual Machine.
..why is it so hard to resist posting an explanation hereto? 
--edit--
I did ask for the definition of the platform-word, didn't I?
I are troll
modified on Monday, March 16, 2009 4:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: comparing apples with beef
Yusuf
Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
|
|
|
|
|
So you can read (and modify even, with a plugin) it, but that's not the source.
And I don't understand the question, will you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because the source can be decompiled, doesn't make it open source, that is determined by the licence attached to the application/component in question.
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I know licence differentiations between open source and non open source. In generally people say Java is open source but C# is not open source when compare these languages. We can read and modify .Net framework dll how using reflector. Actually my question is this action is becaome open source advantage? Or "java is open source" means different than this think... What is open source (not licence question).
|
|
|
|
|
dataminers wrote: What is open source (not licence question).
Unanswerable because the licence defines it so it has to be a licence question!
public bool IsOpenSource(Framework framework, bool licenceQuestion)
{
if (licenceQuestion)
return framework.IsOpenSource;
throw new ArgumentException("Open source is defined by licence so licenceQuestion must be true.");
}
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for answer.
But some times some users want to be source code so they choose open source program. For example goverment change OS system which is windows to linux after 2000 in Germany. It's related about security criteria. I know windows different than c# )) I want to point this is not licence ( in this case licence using for funds concerns) problem.
Thanks for interest and relevance,
Best Regards...
|
|
|
|
|
dataminers wrote: users want to be source code so they choose open source program
We wanted the sourcecode for our spellchecker. It's not open-source, but the company sold us the sources for a fair price. That's proprietary software, and we are not allowed to sell the source
dataminers wrote: It's related about security criteria.
That was related to politics. The EU doesn't want to depend on an American company, especially since most companies have a limited lifespan. Other reasons include politics
dataminers wrote: I want to point this is not licence ( in this case licence using for funds concerns) problem.
True, it's not about the price of Windows, since the TCO of a Linux-machine (for Desktop use, with Office) is comparable.
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
.Net source code, as you know, can be viewed - including most of the stuff in the framework. It is NOT open source, Microsoft decided to release some of it in readonly format.
There is no guarentee that they will continue to do this with future versions of the framework, or that future versions will be able to be decompiled with reflector, or any other tool.
They currently produce 'free' express versions (a few minor limitations for every day users) of each language. Again, they may not do this in future.
If you want to work with an open source version of .NET, then you should use Mono[^].
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
dataminers wrote: Thus it became open source, will you?
No. I will not become open source, will you?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
It's all good, I always thought we were on the same page anyway. Texting doesn't always work out so smoothly. Interesting thought, um er, excuse me I need to go twitter about that.